Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL(By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me, as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament and member of the Franco-British parliamentary group, to ask whether you would welcome the French Members of Parliament who are gracing us with their presence in the Gallery today?

Mr. Speaker: We never refer to those who are present in the Gallery or elsewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Energy Efficiency Office

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the forward budget of the Energy Efficiency Office.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): The budget of the Energy Efficiency Office for

the current year is £15 million. Its budget for future years will be substantially increased by funding for the proposed new insulation scheme for low-income households.

Mr. Campbell: How can we be confident about that assertion, given that the office's budget has been cut from its 1986–86 level of £24·5 million to £15 million for the current year? Did not the Government give evidence to the United Nations that we can save up to 60 per cent. of our fuel bill over the next 15 years by more effective methods of energy conservation? Should not we be looking for more investment and more commitment from the Government to energy efficiency, which would have substantial effects on the environment?

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is overestimating the figure at 60 per cent.—it is about 20 per cent. The fact that £40,000 million is still being spent shows that considerable savings can be made. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that a significant amount of money was spent on advertising. I hope that he will agree that the fact that energy efficiency is at the top of the list of priorities of many businesses and domestic households shows that that money was well spent and need not be spent to the same extent again.

Mr. Moss: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that spending on energy efficiency has increased dramatically since 1979? Does he accept that an industrywide voluntary code on energy efficiency labelling of appliances would be warmly welcomed by Conservative Members?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. Compared with 1979, about £500 million is being saved on energy costs, which by any stretch of the imagination is a significant sum. My hon. Friend may know that the Department is conducting a study on domestic electrical appliances, which we shall publish as soon as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are definite savings to be made.

North Sea(Investment)

Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was capital investment in the North sea in 1989 and 1988.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): Capital investment in the United Kingdom continental shelf oil and gas projects was £2·1 billion in 1988, and my estimate for 1989 is £2·5 billion. Recent forecasts by the National Economic Development Office suggest that capital investment could reach £3·7 billion in 1990.

Miss Widdecombe: What effect have the changes in petroleum revenue tax and their relative tonnages had in respect of the southern basin?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government modified the offshore taxation regime to maintain the right environment for investment. I cannot give my hon. Friend exact figures, but it is generally accepted that the North sea has one of the most favourable taxation regimes in the world. All the evidence shows that North sea activity is booming.

Dr. Reid: I thank the Minister for giving us the capital investment figures for the North sea. Can he tell us what proportion of that investment goes to British firms and, in particular, what proportion of North sea oil steel purchases goes to the Clydesdale tube works—the only British Steel tube works? There is a grave suspicion that, despite all the efforts of the work force and management at the Clydesdale works, foreign tube producers are increasingly penetrating the North sea market. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion is accounted for by British tube works?

Mr. Wakeham: The North sea is a great success story for British suppliers, who have a large proportion—about 80 per cent.—of the business, which is obtained by fair competition. There has rightly been an increase in imported steel tubes—mainly because British Steel was not in a position to supply.

Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that increasing investment in the North sea is now producing forecasts of self-sufficiency in oil for another 10 years? Is not that a tribute both to the effectiveness of the Government's policy and to the enterprise of the oil industry?

Mr. Wakeham: That is absolutely right. The surplus on trade in 1989 was a little bit down on the figure for 1988, but in the coming years the balance is expected to increase significantly to about £2 billion a year, the high investment in the North sea will ensure a healthy balance well into the 1990s.

Mr. Doran: We welcome the increase in expenditure that the Secretary of State has explained to us, but quite a large proportion of that expenditure goes on safety. The Secretary of State will be aware that hardly a week goes by without another safety problem arising in the North sea. I gather that only this morning the Shell Eider platform required partial evacuation because of a gas leak. When will the Secretary of State consider seriously the safety system in the North sea? Investment in technology is not

enough, and there is clearly a problem with the multiplicity of agencies, including the Department, responsible for safety in the North sea.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept much of what the hon. Gentleman said. He is right that there was trouble this morning at the platform that he mentioned, but everyone was safely evacuated and there was no damage in that respect. We continually stress the paramount importance that the Government attach to the safety of offshore workers and repeat that safety standards will not be compromised for any reason. We constantly seek ways to improve the safety of all offshore workers and do not hesitate to introduce any new changes that we think necessary.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Did the figures that my right hon. Friend gave include figures for onshore workings? Will he confirm that there are valuable deposits available both onshore and in the English Channel and that the development at Wytch Farm is to be welcomed, in view of the enormous increase in the resources that have been found there?

Mr. Wakeham: The figures that I cited were for offshore workings, but my hon. Friend is right to point to the significance of onshore developments.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further proposals he has to promote the more efficient use of energy.

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent initiatives he has announced to encourage greater energy efficiency.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Powers for the introduction of a new scheme of grants towards the cost of insulation measures in low-income households are contained in the Social Security Bill, which received its Second Reading on 22 January.

Mr. McAvoy: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am well aware of the proposals in the Social Security Bill. Does the Minister accept that those puny measures do no more than to take us back to 1988 in terms of energy efficiency promotion? It is all very well giving us fine words, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is about time that his Department produced a time scale, even if it is only for the measures in the Social Security Bill?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is being a little less than generous. No doubt he will know that some 700,000 households have benefited from insulation projects over the past few years, and it is intended that many more thousands should benefit from the Social Security Bill.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the Minister bear it in mind that although there are 23 million vehicles on the roads, the internal combustion engine is only 27 per cent. efficient, and that our conventional power stations are only about 37 per cent. efficient? Will he have a look at that matter and see whether the efficiency of the stations and the vehicles could be improved?

Mr. Morrison: I learn something new from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) every day. I was not aware of that fact about the internal


combustion engine. My hon. Friend is a great expert on all matters connected with power stations. We listen carefully to him and shall pay particular attention to his comments on this question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have also made a mistake. I should have called the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran).

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree, in the light of the statement last week by the chairman-designate of British Petroleum to the effect that the consumption of oil was likely to increase and therefore the price to follow it, that he message is clear for industrial and other users that we must cut our present £40 billion a year energy bill?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am delighted that the electricity and gas industries, BP through BP Energy and Shell through Emstar, and contract energy management are directing what will be the private sector to the same end that the Government are aiming for through the Energy Efficiency Office.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that while the increase in the insulation grant, for which many of us have been calling for some years, is welcome, the scale of energy expenditure in the United Kingdom is vast—amounting to £40 billion, as the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) said—and that our ability to meet the targets, which even the Government claim are achievable, seems to be virtually non-existent? What will the Minister's Department do, in conjunction with other agencies outside the House, to ensure that the savings are achieved?

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the figures. While over the past 10 years GDP has increased by 20 per cent., energy consumption has held level. That is a good set of figures and in that respect we are the best in the Common Market. Because of the large figure of £40 billion spend, to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) referred, and the 20 per cent. potential savings, we shall continue to promote in every way possible what is in the interests of all householders and every business.

Mr. Benn: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether his Department was consulted before Mr. Bernard Ingham was offered a university appointment sponsored by British Nuclear Fuels plc? Is it right that a Government press officer should accept that post, particularly in view of Mr. Bernard Ingham's long reputation for opposing journalists who have been critical of the nuclear industry?

Mr. Morrison: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that that is a matter for me. I know nothing about that.

Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate South Western electricity board on its efficient use of its time and skill over the weekend in restoring electricity to many of the villages and towns throughout the south-west? Is he aware that many elderly people in my constituency, particularly along the coastline of Devon, are still without electric light, heating and telephone communications? Will my right hon. Friend consider bringing in private

contractors in the electricity industry to help the electricity board to speed up the rate at which it can reconnect people who still have no electricity supply?

Mr. Morrison: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the South Western electricity board, as I am sure that all hon. Members would, on its tremendous efforts to restore electricity supplies.
On my hon. Friend's point about whether the electricity board's efforts can be augmented, I am sure that all the possibilities are being considered to ensure that electricity can be restored as soon as possible. Obviously, that will take time in the more distant communities. I am advised that it may take even until Thursday or Friday in some cases, but everything will be done to reconnect supplies as soon as possible.

Mr. Dobson: The Minister has told us about his airy-fairy plans for energy efficiency in the future, but he should consider what is happening now. With regard to the community insulation programme, draughtproofing jobs completed last year fell by 30,000 and loft insulations fell by about two thirds. In London and the south-east alone, the number of operatives involved has fallen from 1,100 to 150. Surely the Minister should he doing something now.

Mr. Morrison: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would notice—certainly his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) has noticed—that we are doing something, and that was mentioned on Second Reading of the Social Security Bill—

Mr. Dobson: That is just talk in the House. Do something.

Mr. Morrison: Of course, we are. If the hon. Gentleman were to look carefully at the reasons behind the figures that he gave, he would realise that the number of long-term unemployed has fallen substantially. That means that there are fewer people to do the job under the old programme. That is why we are introducing a new programme that will help tens of thousands of low-income households.

British Gas (Disconnections)

Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many customers of British Gas were disconnected for debt during the last financial year.

Mr. Lester: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many customers of British Gas were disconnected for debt during the last financial year.

Mr. Peter Morrison: This is a matter for British Gas. However, I am delighted that the number of British Gas customers disconnected for debt is now lower than at any time since records were first kept in 1977.

Mr. Stewart: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's reply as it shows beyond doubt that privatised British Gas is superior in all respects to that which went before it in the days of nationalisation. That reply also refutes the Labour party's allegation that British Gas puts profits before consumers.

Mr. Morrison: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that it is unpleasant for Opposition Members to


admit that the privatised British Gas is a great success. The number of disconnections, calculated on a yearly basis, to September last year was some 23,200, which is about half the number disconnected in the year before British Gas was privatised. The fall in the number of disconnections, let alone the comparative price of gas, demonstrates that British Gas is a success story.

Mr. Charles Wardle: What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that pensioners are reminded of the new British Gas code of practice and to explain to them that since privatisation, gas standing charges have increased by less than the increase in the cost of living?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will be aware that British Gas has consulted all 17 million of its customers and that it is making them aware of the services that it offers—that number includes, of course, pensioners. In the past five years standing charges have fallen in real terms by some 33 per cent. and, since privatisation, they have fallen by about 18 per cent. That is a good record.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the Minister's figures, but are there are any further plans to ensure that the particularly vulnerable, pensioners and the mentally ill, have an opportunity to register that vulnerability or to get someone to register it on their behalf, or will the industry provide a mechanism whereby vulnerable customers can be identified? In that way, they could be protected against accidental disconnection as a result of their inability to deal with reminders or any paperwork. Such things happen. The new arrangements could result in a further reduction in the disconnection rate for good reason.

Mr. Morrison: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the figures and I know that in the past two and a half years that I have answered questions on this subject, he has been concerned with it. The figures demonstrate that British Gas is concerned to ensure that such small, select groups are properly catered for and looked after. I regret to say that, every now and then, one or two people may slip through the net, but every effort is being made by British Gas.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the last thing that British Gas wants to do is to cut off a consumer and, therefore, a customer? Sensitive arrangements are now in hand, however, and Southern Gas ensures that there is a minimum period of 77 days from the date of the first bill to the disconnection. Those arrangements also include counselling, when British Gas seeks to discuss the situation with the customer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the message that should go from the House is that anyone in difficulty with his gas bill should please get in touch with his gas board?

Mr. Morrison: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The staff at the gas showrooms and offices that I have visited are most sympathetic towards their customers and are at pains to try to point out the procedures that are available to them.

British Coal

Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what was discussed.

Mr. Wakeham: I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. O'Brien: Did the chairman of British Coal raise with the Secretary of State the significant problem of waste disposal in the Selby coalfield? I remind the Secretary of State that when the public inquiry into the development of the Selby coalfield was held in 1976, it was stated that there would be no waste to be disposed of there, but now there are over 1·25 million tonnes of waste per year, all of which has to be disposed of in my constituency. As the possibility that there would be waste disposal problems was denied at that public inquiry, will the Secretary of State prevail upon the chairman of British Coal to institute a public inquiry into those waste disposal problems, because of the significant effects that they have on my constituency, including the filling in of two miles of the river Calder, which cannot be regarded as acceptable in any language? When the Secretary of State next discusses British Coal matters with the chairman, will he raise the question of an inquiry into the waste disposal problems at the Selby coalfield?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure whether an inquiry would be helpful, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about a matter involving his constituency. The waste disposal arrangements at Selby are a matter for British Coal, but I shall draw the chairman's attention to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Dr. Michael Clark: When my right hon. Friend met the chairman of British Coal, did he discuss with him the speech that the chairman made at the Institution of Mining Engineers on 24 January, in which he said that colliery managers are now more free to manage and that miners and trade union officials are more open minded, more flexible and more realistic than they were 10 years ago? Is not that good news for the coal industry and does not it show the progress that has been made in the industry during the lifetime of this Government?

Mr. Wakeham: I was present when Sir Robert Haslam made those encouraging remarks at that dinner. Indeed, I made some encouraging remarks myself about the future of British Coal if it takes the opportunities that are available to it to continue the productivity gains that it has already made. Its productivity gains of 75 per cent. on the pre-strike levels are a good example of what can be done, but I am afraid that more will have to be done in the future.

Dr. Kim Howells: When the Secretary of State met the chairman of British Coal, did he discuss with him the recent appointment of Coopers and Lybrand, the accountants, as the body to administer the so-called "fossil fuel levy" which I believe the Minister should more accurately term the "nuclear levy", as it is designed to subsidise the nuclear sector? Will the Secretary of State give the House some details about that levy, such as the amount and the way in which it will be levied upon the customers of the electricity industry?

Mr. Wakeham: I did not discuss that matter with Sir Robert Haslam, but the details of the levy will be announced shortly. I know that the cross-Channel link and the electricity that comes from France are of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman, and I am happy to give him some details about that. As he knows electricity is


traded in both directions and as it is an interruptible supply it will not qualify for the non-fossil fuel obligation, and therefore will not receive the "nuclear levy".

Coal Privatisation

Mr. Gow: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to introduce a Bill to give to miners the opportunity to become owners of the coal mining industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): Employee participation will be looked at closely in the context of privatisation proposals for coal which we hope to bring forward in the next Parliament.

Mr. Gow: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has the congratulations and best wishes of the House on his first appearance on the Front Bench at Question Time? Is he aware that 85 per cent. of those who work for the water industry bought shares when that industry was privatised? Does he realise that the longer he postpones the privatisation of coal the longer he denies to those who work in the coal industry the opportunity that was rightly given to those who work in the water industry to become worker-shareholders?

Mr. Baldry: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and I commend to the House the excellent speech that he made on 19 January. It is worthy of re-reading by every hon. Member. In it, he clearly set out the merits of the Government's programme of privatisation and its undoubted benefits for consumers, customers, taxpayers and, most particularly, employees.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister appreciate that many thousands of men in the mining industry will be unable to buy British Coal shares because under Government policy, once the contracts between British Coal and the electricity supply industry become operative, 30,000 miners will lose their jobs? What interest will they have in privatisation?

Mr. Baldry: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise, but I can tell him that the coal industry, perhaps more than any other, depends on the fullhearted co-operation and enthusiasm of its work force to be successful. Unlike the Opposition, we believe that employees should have every opportunity to buy shares in their own industries and we see no reason why the coal industry should be treated any differently.

Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that when we have returned the coal industry to a shareholding democracy through the market there will be little need for a Department of Energy any more? Will he assure us that we shall not retain that massive Government Department for the nefarious promotion of the efficient use of energy and will he agree with the previous Secretary of State that he looks forward to locking up the doors and throwing the keys into the Thames?

Mr. Baldry: Having only just arrived at the Department, I should not be forecasting its demise.

Coal Imports

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss coal imports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the level of coal imports.

Mr. Wakeham: I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry, including coal imports.
Coal imports for the period January to November 1989 were 11·2 million tonnes. We do not produce estimates for future years.

Mr. Skinner: How can the Minister justify that massive increase in imported coal—to more than 11 million tonnes in less than a year—when we already have a balance of payments deficit of more than £20 billion? Is it not economic lunacy to add to that bill? Does he realise that that figure is equivalent to more than 10 pits and more than 11,000 jobs of miners who, having been thrown out of work, would have to be picked up by the taxpayer, who would have to pay their dole and welfare benefits? What is the point of it all?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman may make his point; he has made it a number of times before. He referred to a massive increase in coal imports, but the figure that I quoted was 11,188,000 tonnes, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was less than the figure for 1988. The figure was for 11 months, not for 12. We cannot speak of those figures, therefore, as a "massive increase".
Of course, no Government have ever restricted the import of coal and we do not believe that restricting competition is in the best interests of the coal industry and of the long-term security of jobs, which rely on its being a competitive industry.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the world price of coal is somewhat lower than the price charged by the coal industry to the electricity boards? Does he therefore agree that coal imports are in the interests of the consumer, that they will lead to lower electricity bills for pensioners and that they will help to safeguard jobs in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Wakeham: I believe that overwhelmingly the main source of coal supplies for United Kingdom generating industry for a long time to come will be British Coal. But my hon. Friend makes an important point. The House may be interested to know that United Kingdom coal imports in 1988 cost an average £35·67 a tonne, compared with British Coal's price of £41·16 a tonne. So there is not a staggering difference, as some people make out, but there is a significant difference and British Coal must continue to improve its productivity.

Mr. Eadie: As the Secretary of State is aware both that it has been clearly established that if the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill passes through the House there will be an increase in coal imports and that the chairman of British Coal has said that he is against that Bill, is it not lunacy to proceed with it, especially when the Government and the nation are being confronted with our horrific balance of payments deficit, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred, and more miners will be made redundant as a consequence? Is that a sensible energy policy?

Mr. Wakeham: It is not an amazing surprise that the chairman of British Coal should not be wildly enthusiastic about any Bill that he perceives will increase competition.
Nevertheless, we believe that competition is right. The hon. Gentleman's time scale is wrong. Even if the port is built as intended and all the necessary arrangements are made, it will be a good many years before much extra coal is imported through it. Moreover, British Coal has other competitors in the market, such as oil and gas. There is no need to build additional ports to bring in those facilities. That is why it is essential that British Coal continues making substantial improvements in future. That is its long-term security.

Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that another major competitor is nuclear generation and that if coal prices were increased, which is the Labour party policy, that would change the balance in the figures more closely in favour of nuclear generation which, incidentally, many Conservative Members would welcome?

Mr. Wakeham: I am a strong supporter of nuclear energy. It has a part to play in the diversity of supply which we want. My hon. Friend is right that the significant difference between the nuclear industry and the others is that the nuclear industry must pay the full costs of disposing of its waste, and we know of the difficulties that that produces. That is not necessarily so of fossil fuel generation.

Mr. Barron: What will happen to coal imports this year? It is all very well to quote the figures for 1989, but the Secretary of State is well aware, as I am, that the two new generating companies established by the Bill to privatise the electricity supply industry have so far contracted to import 6 million tonnes of coal to generate electricity—

Mr. Paice: Not enough.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Not enough" and perhaps he can explain that.
Until now British Coal has lost 5 million tonnes. It signed a contract for 70 million tonnes this year, but it does not know which electricity generators will need the coal. We do not know what our base load generation will be. As a consequence, there is low morale in the British coal industry from top to bottom. The Secretary of State does not know where the coal flows will come from, from pits to generating stations, and we do not know what the industry's future will be until we hear answers to these questions.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman makes many remarks. If he had listened to the original answer he would have heard that we do not produce estimates for future years. He should understand that coal must be imported if we are to use a great deal of United Kingdom coal which has a high sulphur content. It is necessary for the mix. I should have thought that in a balanced prospectus of the position, he would say something about the fact that this is the first time that British Coal has had a long-term contract to supply the British generating industry. I should have thought that that was a good thing.

Combined Heat and Power

Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what current action the Government are taking to promote the use of combined heat and power.

Mr. Peter Morrison: My Department is actively promoting combined heat and power through the best

practice programme. We are also discussing some joint promotional activities with the Combined Heat and Power Association.

Mr. Key: To what extent is the private sector involved in combined heat and power schemes? Can my hon. Friend tell me—if he cannot do so today, perhaps he will write to me—whether the energy technology support unit is involved in work with straw burning, in support of farmers who face a ban on straw burning from 1992?

Mr. Morrison: The private sector is quite substantially involved in combined heat and power schemes. There are 120 such schemes in industry and 300 in buildings. I hope that such involvement will continue to expand. I shall write to my hon. Friend giving him precise details about the energy technology support unit. It is the sort of area in which it is becoming involved, and in which it has an important role to play.

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that one of the most coal-efficient, energy-efficient proposed plants is the Bilsthorpe plant in central Nottinghamshire? Is he further aware that, despite the efforts of the Member of the European Parliament, the county council and its chairman of finance, Mr. Paddy Tipping, to obtain planning permission for the plant, The Independent on Sunday yesterday said that Mr. Edwards, the commercial director of British Coal, intends to shelve that plant? Will the Minister reassure the miners in central Nottinghamshire, many of whom travel from my constituency, that that plant will go ahead?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), whose constituency includes the site of the proposed plant, will no doubt bring these matters to my attention, and my right hon. Friend and I shall consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Lenient Sentences

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the use of his power to appeal against the leniency of sentences.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Since I February 1989, when this power took effect, I have applied for leave to refer the sentencing in nine cases to the Court of Appeal. I have withdrawn two cases in the light of further information. Leave has been granted in the remaining seven cases and sentences have been increased in six of the cases. I have referred one case to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland; the sentence in that case was also increased.

Mr. Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his use of that power, which has led to more sensible sentences, and, even more important, a more rigorous climate of sentencing in the courts. Is he aware that many believe that stronger sentences are the most effective way to deal with the problem of crime?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Very occasionally—and I emphasise that it is very occasionally—a sentence is passed by the courts that is manifestly unduly lenient. When that happens, the


effect on public confidence is entirely disproportionately damaging. The new power that Parliament has provided, and which I exercise with great care, is valuable.

Taken-over Cases

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General how many private prosecutions, in number and percentage figures have been (a) taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions and (b) thereafter discontinued, in each of the years 1985 to 1989, inclusive.

The Attorney-General: Between 1987 and 1989, 10 private prosecutions out of at least 28 taken over by the Crown prosecution service were discontinued. It is not possible to obtain information about cases before that date or to express the numbers as a percentage of all private prosecutions, except at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect on whether cases where the Director of Public Prosecutions took over a prosecution and then sustained it might have been cases where the original prosecuting authority should have continued to prosecute—and often cases which were considered for public prosecution in the first place? Can he also assure the House that when matters come directly to the DPP or indirectly through another prosecuting agency, in those cases that involve transport safety or safety at work corporate manslaughter is always one of the options now considered by the DPP?

The Attorney-General: We always consider every possible course consistent with the interests of justice. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the director usually takes over a case when he considers it to be in the interests of justice to do so. Normally he will do so for that reason only. But where a prosecution has been brought by, for example, a body with prosecuting power, that body will normally pursue the prosecution. Only in a case where, for example, it is necessary to combine prosecutions that the director himself has brought with cases that have been brought by a prosecuting authority will the director take over and continue the prosecution.

Shops Act 1950

Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Attorney-General what information he has on the number of prosecutions under the Shops Act 1950 since the ruling by the European Court of Justice last November.

The Attorney-General: As my hon. Friend is aware, prosecutions under the Shops Act 1950 are brought by local authorities, and I have no information on the number of prosecutions brought since last November.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is widespread evasion of the Sunday trading law by big multiple retailers and that certain local authorities find it impossible to cope, even though the position has recently been clarified by the European Court? How can we justify preaching the rule of law to the meek when we fail to enforce it against the mighty? When will my right hon. and learned Friend take action against wrongdoers?

The Attorney-General: It is the duty of local authorities, by virtue of section 71 of the Shops Act, to enforce the provisions of that Act in their areas. I have yet to hear

from a local authority that finds it impossible to do so. Local authorities have powers of prosecution. In addition, the Local Government Act 1972 empowers them to claim injunctions to prevent flouting of the law, including the Shops Act, in their areas when they think that such action would be in the interests of the inhabitants. I think that, generally, a local authority is in the best position to judge that matter in respect of its own area. Indeed, that has been recognised in the framing of the legislation. Any one who has a direct and individual concern has the means, in law, to bring an authority to account by seeking judicial review or by seeking my consent to relator action. Therefore I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to take an initiative, either nationally or locally, at this juncture.

Mr. Ray Powell: Having listened to the Attorney-General's explanation, may I ask him to read the Prime Minister's reply last Thursday, as recorded in column 1050 of the Official Report, when she referred to upholding a law once it had been passed by Parliament? It is high time that the Shops Act 1950 was given some special attention by the Attorney-General and was implemented fully in respect of those who blatantly refuse to abide by it.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has not given due weight to the fact that section 71 of the Shops Act conferred upon local authorities a duty to enforce the law in their areas. I commend to the hon. Gentleman what I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).

Mr. Raison: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Shops Act is so perverse that evasion and defiance of it are inevitable? Does he agree that the only rational course is to go back to the legislation that was brought forward, admittedly unsuccessfully, in the last Parliament? Does not he agree that total reform is the only way out of this mess?

The Attorney-General: Tempting though it is to acept that invitation, it would be wrong for me to answer a question relating to a matter that is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Fraser: Does not the Attorney-General think that there is something wrong when the law is enforced unpredictably between one local authority area and another, sometimes in a quite contrary fashion? Would not it be helpful if the Attorney-General were to publish some guidelines on prosecutions, in order to eliminate unnecessary small cases and to give the same kind of guidance to local authorities as has been given to police authorities in relation to other offences?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that it is necessary for me to give guidance to local authorities when the two statutory provisions that apply to them in this context are clear. For example, it is a matter for them, when they are deciding to seek or not to seek an injunction, to consider whether to do so would be in the interests of the inhabitants of their area. That is the language of the section.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would give credence to the Church of England's campaign against sensible reform of the Shops Act 1950 if cathedral shops stopped opening on Sundays in defiance of that legislation?

The Attorney-General: I note my hon. Friend's remarks, which will no doubt be heeded in high places.

Privatisation

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 8 January, Official Report, column 701, what consideration he has now given to the position of Coopers and Lybrand regarding those who have been commissioned to write a report for the Government on the privatisation of the Property Services Agency-Crown Suppliers becoming involved in a potential management buy-out.

The Attorney-General: I have inquired into this matter. None of the information available to me indicates any improper or unlawful conduct by any of those involved, as I believe the hon. Member has very fairly indicated upstairs that he now accepts.

Mr. Dalyell: Without going into the case of Mr. Etherington, to whom Mr. Brendan Gough, chairman of Coopers and Lybrand, wrote a long and courteous letter, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that he ought to examine the principle of those who have been asked to produce objective reports that are paid for by the taxpayer—as Coopers and Lybrand are—being involved in management buy-outs? Is not that sailing a little close to the wind?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman made that point upstairs. Every case that is brought to the attention of the Law Officers is examined on its merits and in the light of the surrounding circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Nepal (Family Planning)

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange to visit Nepal to discuss further funding of family planning through the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I have no current plans to visit Nepal, but I am always very ready to consider viable proposals for family planning and in the related area of mother and child health.

Mr. Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that great economic pressure has been put on Nepal as a consequence of the closure of its borders with India? Will she indicate to both Indian and Nepalese Governments the importance that the British Government attach to opening those borders, to allow free trade between those two countries? In view of the pressure on the Nepalese Government, will she consider making a one-off grant direct to the Nepalese family planning association, so that its important work can continue even though the Nepalese Government may reduce its grant to that association to make pressing economic savings?

Mrs. Chalker: We are hopeful that there will be a settlement soon between India and Nepal. We have given support during the trade dispute, and we expect to increase aid in the current year by almost £3 million over the last

year. That will help to accommodate new projects and the additional costs of development projects. I am glad to tell the House that last week the Nepalese Government agreed to a primary health care programme that will assist women and families in urgent need of family planning advice. We need to give sumultaneous attention to mother and child health, which we are doing in a number of ways.

Food Production

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much is being spent in the current year on food-growing schemes in Ethiopia, the Sudan, Bangladesh and other Third world countries; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: We accord high priority to food production, both in our bilateral support and in our contributions to multilateral programmes. Current year expenditure from our bilateral programme on food-growing schemes is some £1·8 million in Bangladesh, £2·9 million in Sudan and £02·7 million in Ethiopia.

Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the direct food aid being given to Bangladesh, Sudan and Ethiopia. Does she agree that until those countries are assisted in growing their own food, they will be unable to feed their populations in the long term? Will she use her imminent visit to Bangladesh to impress on that country's Government the urgent need for Bangladesh to grow its own food—with help, when it is needed?

Mrs. Chalker: The most important thing of all for those three countries, but particularly for Ethiopia and Sudan, is that they should enjoy peace. Without it, there is no chance of achieving the right policy environment, to ensure that farmers have the inputs that they require to produce food on time. Those farmers should also get the right prices for their produce. We must ensure that farmers are able to grow produce in all those countries, but that cannot be done at a time of civil war. I shall be talking to the Bangladesh Government about a number of food-growing programmes, including fish farming, to help supply the people of that country with the necessary vitamins.

Mrs. Clwyd: Given the Minister's emphasis on peace—with which we would all agree—does she accept that if they followed the lead of the United States in cutting defence spending her Government would be able to be far more generous to the Third world? In the light of the conflicting views that we are told exist in the Cabinet, will she tell us exactly where she stands on the issue? Is she in favour of defence cuts that would enable the Third world to obtain more money from the Government?

Mrs. Chalker: I am certainly in favour of helping the developing world; I am also in favour of multilateral disarmament. I am not, however, in favour of putting the country's defences at risk. No Government could have been more active than ours in seeking to persuade the Ethiopian Government to establish a peace and get food to the starving people who need it so badly.

Sir Bernard Braine: All hon. Members on both sides of the House will endorse my right hon. Friend's statement that it is not much use talking about agricultural development in an area where bitter civil war still rages. Is she aware that recent reports show an increasing flow of


Ethiopian refugees into the southern Sudan, and that the situation is critical? What efforts are being made to ensure that relief food reaches Port Sudan and Khartoum in time to save lives?

Mrs. Chalker: I assure my right hon. Friend that we are doing all that we can to get food to the various areas that need it. Furthermore, now that we have successfully persuaded the Ethiopian Government that they should allow the food through the joint relief programme to those in need, I hope that the rebels will also agree to do so. I am pleased to tell my right hon. Friend that I shall be announcing a further £2·6 million of food aid for Ethiopia, and a further £1 million of emergency relief.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the news that the Minister is going to Bangladesh next week. While she is there, will she take the opportunity to consider two issues? First, will she look at the apparent imbalance in the geographical distribution of aid? Some districts seem to receive less support than others. Secondly, will she consider the back-up mechanisms that might be available to Bangladesh through aid from Britain, allowing training and educational opportunities to Bangladeshi school-leavers so that they can help the agriculture industry and develop new technologies in the future? It is not just a matter of agriculture; it is also a matter of education.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is right. Let me point out, however, that our aid to Bangladesh last year, at §56·8 million, was the highest ever. We have been giving awards for training in the United Kingdom, and about 300 new awards are currently being provided each year. We are also trying to help with natural resources, energy, communications, health and education, particularly education and health projects for women. It is a very full programme that I shall be discussing next week.

Nepal

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what nonfinancial assistance has been given to Nepal during the last 12 months.

Mrs. Chalker: We provided over £7 million in non-financial assistance to Nepal in 1988–89, the last full financial year for which figures are available. This covered training awards in Britain, and technical co-operation which included assistance with forestry, agriculture, education, water and sanitation and roads.

Dr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, owing to the trade and transit dispute between Nepal and India, there is a considerable shortage of fuel for cooking and heating? Is she aware that, without petroleum products, there is a great danger of an acceleration in the deforestation which is already a cause of concern? What can we do to help to ensure that Nepal receives more petroleum products in the short term?

Mrs. Chalker: We discussed with the Nepalese Government an airlift of fuel, but together we concluded

that their stocks of fuel are adequate for the time being. We are watching the position. As for Nepal's environmental needs, we share its concern over the deforestation of the hills. That is why we are providing £2·9 million to accelerate research that will lead to the introduction of new species of trees to assist the area. A further £3·9 million is to be made available for the improvement and management of community forest areas.

Bangladesh

Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Minister for Overseas Development's forthcoming visit to Bangladesh.

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to the reply given on 8 January, Official Report, column 552, what subjects will be discussed during the Minister for Overseas Development's forthcoming visit to Bangladesh.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall pay my first visit to Bangladesh from 6 to 9 February and will have general discussions on our aid programme with a number of Bangladesh Government Ministers. I expect to discuss the follow-up to the successful flood control conference which Her Majesty's Government hosted in London last month. I look forward to visiting some of our current aid projects.

Mr. Kirkhope: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the progress that has been made with flood control projects in Bangladesh, and in particular what role the United Kingdom is playing in those projects?

Mrs. Chalker: The British Government were one of the first to respond to the worst floods in living memory in Bangladesh in August 1988. We provided £8 million in emergency relief and a further £17 million for rehabilitation. We have now embarked on establishing a longer-term flood control strategy. That began at last month's international conference in London. I am glad to say that all the projects have had donor pledges. There will be a full programme of flood prevention measures.

Mr. Paice: Will my right hon. Friend talk to the Bangladeshis about the role of the non-governmental organisations? Will she also consider providing help to Bangladesh for reforestation to create the soil stability that is needed to prevent flood damage and improve food production?

Mrs. Chalker: To my knowledge, we are supporting CARE, Save the Children Fund, Action Aid, Oxfam and especially a local Bangladeshi non-governmental organisation. I shall consider further possible roles for non-governmental organisations through our joint funding scheme. We are already considering the possibility of providing help for reforestation. We have carried out a study in the Sundarbans area on the coast. That is essential if we are to prevent cyclones from causing damage inland.

Hillsborough Stadium Disaster (Taylor Report)

Mr. Speaker: Statement, Mr. Secretary Waddington.

Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What can it be? We have not yet heard the statement.

Mr. Allen: As usual, the statement was not made available until now. That makes the contribution of any hon. Member not as informed as it might otherwise be. With your authority, will you reconsider this practice on future occasions?

Mr. Speaker: Whether copies of statements are made available to Back Benchers—I have a personal view about that—is a matter for the Government, not for me.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the final report of Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the tragedy at the Hillsborough stadium on 15 April 1989. Some months have passed since that terrible event, but not long enough, I know, to dull the pain suffered by the bereaved, and I wish to place on record my sympathy for them and for those who sustained injury.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What can it be? The Home Secretary has only just started to make his statement.

Mr. Heffer: Some of us who are deeply concerned about the matter have not got the report. If we are to ask intelligent questions, the report ought to be in our hands. All I have is the interim report, not the final report. The interim report was issued in August of last year. We have not got the final report. If we are to discuss the matter properly, may we have the final report before we discuss it?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which I am afraid I cannot answer. Whether a report is made available at the time a statement is made is a matter for the Home Secretary and for the Government. It is not a matter for me, but I understand that a report—I believe it is an interim report—is available in the Vote Office now. [Interruption.] Order. I correct myself. I have not been able to go there. It seems that the full report is available.

Mr. Waddington: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
I am most grateful to Lord Justice Taylor for the report, which sets out clearly why we have had so many major tragedies at football grounds over the years and why we have had disorder and hooliganism.
As the House familiarises itself with the report, it will become clear that it is addressed as much to the football industry as it is to the Government. Lord Justice Taylor explains how, in his interim report, he concentrated on overcrowding because that was the cause of the Hillsborough disaster, but now he goes on to talk of a game whose image of which has been much tarnished and

of a blight over the game due to old grounds, poor facilities, hooliganism, excessive drinking and poor leadership.
Lord Justice Taylor does not spare those who run the industry. He says, indeed, that the provision they make for their customers is often not merely basic but squalid; that squalid conditions can have an impact on safety; and that, in his view, they also lead to lower standards of behaviour.
Lord Justice Taylor says that the Football Association and Football League have not seen it as any part of their duty to offer guidance to clubs on safety matters, and he questions whether the directors of many clubs are genuinely interested in the welfare of their supporters or their good behaviour. Players, too, are criticised, with Lord Justice Taylor pointing out that incitement from the pitch or bad behaviour by players, which is not confined to soccer, has a major influence on the crowd.
I acknowledge that some clubs have made an effort to improve standards, but Lord Justice Taylor's clear conclusion was that the majority had not and that the game has a future only if the directors and the players can change their priorities and give a leadership which is plainly lacking at present.
He agrees with the Government that there must be a move towards all-seater stadiums, and points out that section 11 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 specifically provides the machinery for that. The change will improve safety and behaviour, and we intend to bring it about.
Lord Justice Taylor makes clear that the bulk of the finances for ground improvements will have to be raised by the clubs themselves. He says that there are ways of raising the money if the clubs' management is enterprising and resourceful, and he points to the opportunities presented by sponsorship. He also points to the revenue that flows to the football authorities from television rights and says that the football authorities should ensure that this valuable source of revenue is directed towards improving stadiums. He canvasses the possibility of a levy on transfer fees which he says have reached a level which many regard as grotesque.
There is a whole series of detailed recommendations set out in chapters 3, 4 and 5 on matters relating to spectator safety, such as gates and gangways. Indeed, of the 76 recommendations, 43 in substance appear in the interim report. The Government accept these proposals, some of which can be implemented immediately; some will need further work. For convenience, I have placed in the Vote Office a schedule setting out the Government's response to each.
Hon. Members will recall that section 13 of the Football Spectators Act provides for the Football Licensing Authority to supervise the safety responsibilities of local authorities in respect of designated football grounds. We intend to implement that provision. Lord Justice Taylor welcomes the establishment of the Football Licensing Authority but would like us to go further and extend its remit to cover other than football grounds. This would require primary legislation, and we will have to consider whether it is justified.
Part III of the report contains a number of proposals relating to crowd control and hooliganism. It acknowledges the crucial role of the police in crowd control. Lord Justice Taylor rightly reminds us that, without the work of the police, many sporting events would be chaotic and could not be permitted to take place. About 5,000 police officers are engaged on football duties


each Saturday during the season, largely at the expense of the taxpayer and the ratepayer. He pays tribute to them for their service, and I want to add my thanks to the police for the way that they carry out the difficult, thankless, and often unthanked, tasks that are thrust upon them.
The report recognises the advances made in the last couple of years in the effectiveness of the policing of football, particularly inside grounds, and to the major impact of closed circuit television on the hooligan problem. It also mentions other measures taken by the Government, such as the restriction on the sale of alcohol and the power given to the courts to make orders excluding convicted hooligans from grounds.
Lord Justice Taylor also recognises the great potential value of the police national football intelligence unit in dealing with football-related crime and with hooligans travelling to matches abroad.
As I have said, Lord Justice Taylor takes the view that better facilities and better treatment of fans will bring better behaviour. Beyond that, the report recommends the creation of three new specific offences to apply at designated sports grounds—throwing a missile; chanting obscene or racialist abuse; and going on to the pitch without reasonable excuse. It also asks for consideration to be given to extending the courts' powers to impose attendance centre orders and for the use of electronic tagging in the case of offenders convicted of football-related offences. The specific new offences suggested seem, to some extent, to duplicate offences which are already available in the Public Order Act 1986, but I shall look carefully and quickly at all these suggestions.
I now come to the proposed football membership scheme. Lord Justice Taylor examined the invitation to tender for a scheme which was issued by the consultants employed by the football authorities. He came to the conclusion that he could not support a scheme of that kind, because he could not believe that the technology would work well enough to avoid the danger of congestion and disorder. He was also concerned about the call on police resources. Instead, he proposes the measures to which I have referred.
In the light of this advice, the Government have decided not to proceed with the establishment of a football membership authority, but part I of the Act will remain on the statute book. Work will continue to see how the shortcomings identified by Lord Justice Taylor could be overcome in case we have to return to the matter again, should the problem of hooliganism not be defeated by the alternative strategy proposed in the report.
Let no one imagine that this means that there will be any let-up in the fight against hooliganism. Those who, unlike the Government, have for so long shrugged off their responsibilities will now have to face up to them.
The Government intend to proceed as quickly as possible to the establishment of a football licensing authority and, subject to consultation, section 11 of the Football Spectators Act will be used to direct the Football Licensing Authority to require all-seater stadiums—with standing being reduced by stages and entirely eliminated in first and second division grounds by August 1994 and in all Football League grounds by 1999.
The necessary steps will be taken to ensure improved arrangements for crowd control and better training for police and stewards. There will be urgent consideration of the case for new offences and for new powers to deal with those excluded from grounds by the courts. The clubs will

be compelled to get rid of the terraces. But Lord Justice Taylor indicates how much more they can do to create a better atmosphere by improving the now often squalid conditions to which they subject their supporters—squalid conditions that can encourage squalid behaviour.
Those clubs that have not faced up to their responsibility now have a final opportunity to do so; and if they do not now act, the public will not forgive them.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: First, let me take this opportunity to express once again our sympathy for all those whose relatives and friends were killed or injured in the tragedy into which Lord Justice Taylor inquired. Secondly, I offer the Opposition's thanks to Lord Justice Taylor for his thoughtful and thorough report. If sensibly applied, it can provide the basis for much-needed improvements throughout our football grounds.
Will the Home Secretary confirm that the report is explicit in describing the proposed football identity card scheme first as likely to increase—not reduce—hooliganism inside and outside grounds; secondly, as probably not technically feasible; and, thirdly, as more likely to increase the risk of death and injury than to reduce it?
Is the Home Secretary aware that, whatever language he may use today to save the Prime Minister's face and preserve her reputation for inflexibility—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hattersley: Whatever language the Home Secretary may use today, the identity card scheme is dead as a result of the report. Once again, the Government have wasted time and money creating the illusion of activity. Most of what the Taylor report recommends could have been implemented by agreement two years ago had the Government chosen to make progress instead of trying to make headlines.
I assure the Home Secretary that no regular football supporter doubts the need to improve the conditions in most of our grounds—to improve safety and to improve facilities. We therefore offer our support for a number of the specific proposals recommended by Lord Justice Taylor, particularly those that would ensure that law-abiding supporters, who make up the vast majority of football spectators, are treated like civilised human beings.
Is the Home Secretary aware that we support the more vigorous use of exclusion orders to prohibit known hooligans from attending football matches? We urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to extend attendance orders to all those excluded from football grounds, to ensure that they are kept under supervision on match days.
Equally, we support the proposal that it should be a specific offence to throw a missile, and that racist chanting should be made illegal. We welcome the action proposed against ticket touts and we shall examine whatever proposal the Government bring forward to prohibit spectators from running on to pitches. But will the Home Secretary agree that, as the report makes absolutely clear, it is important to distinguish between pitch invasions intended to breach the peace and actions motivated by simple enthusiasm—what Lord Justice Taylor describes as "joie de vivre"?
We certainly support the idea of seats replacing terraces, but is the Home Secretary aware that the


proposal to prohibit standing at football grounds by law has yet to be justified either on grounds of safety or on grounds of convenience? Many law-abiding supporters prefer to stand, and it is perfectly possible for standing accommodation to be provided in a way that endangers neither safety nor law and order. Should not the Government be discussing with the football authorities the provision of a seat for every supporter who wants one and the creation of safe standing areas for those who do not?
I want to ask the Home Secretary a specific question on which we pressed him to no avail during the months of the Committee stage of the Football Spectators Bill. If he persists in making football grounds all-seater stadiums by law, is it his intention to make it illegal for a spectator to stand in a seated area? [Interruption.] The incredulity of the Home Secretary and his supporters confirms that they have been to only one football match in the past 40 years—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very serious matters.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Home Secretary confirm that paragraphs 112 and 114 of the report do not endorse the Prime Minister's view that the £70 million spent recently on transfer fees is available for ground improvements? If the Prime Minister is so opposed to the present level of transfer fees, why does the Chancellor make them tax-deductible when there are no capital allowances for improvements to buildings and physical facilities at football grounds?
I urge the Home Secretary to take a realistic view about the financing of football. In this country, the arts are assisted inadequately and our national game is not helped at all. Will the Home Secretary now convene a meeting between the pools promoters, the football authorities and the Government at which the whole issue of football finance can be discussed? Eight years ago, the Government increased the pools betting duty by 2·5 per cent. Were that decision to be reversed, the pools promoters would pass the entire saving on to football. Will the Government at least consider the possibility of helping the game in that way?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, will the Home Secretary understand that attempts to solve the problems of football by conflict and confrontation have now clearly failed? We need some co-operation. I hope that the Government will provide it.

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) correctly stated Lord Justice Taylor's criticism of the scheme which he considered, as outlined in the invitation to tender drawn up by the consultants employed by the football authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government wasted time and trouble on the Bill. At least the Government showed themselves prepared to address the problems. Opposition Members have never even recognised the problems. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) had the stupidity to say on Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill:
I do not believe there is any such thing as football hooliganism."—[Official Report, 27 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 916.]

That is the kind of arrant nonsense that we have heard from Opposition Members. While we were at least trying to do something about football hooliganism, the Opposition were not prepared to do anything.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook calls for better conditions in grounds, and then immediately says that he does not agree with all-seater stadiums, which are the obvious way of bringing about better conditions in grounds. He also referred to specific offences. I have already said that I will consider urgently whether they should be introduced. However, I should point out that, again unlike Opposition Members, the Government have already been prepared to address themselves to those problems, and we created new offences in the Public Order Act 1986.
Having said at the outset how much he welcomed Lord Justice Taylor's report, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook then said that he rejected its fundamental conclusions, because the whole strategy that Lord Justice Taylor says should be implemented instead of the introduction of the football membership scheme is the introduction of all-seater stadiums. Once again, the Opposition are not prepared to face up to their responsibilities. They are prepared to do precisely nothing. They will not have the membership scheme, nor will they accept the Taylor report. We wait anxiously to hear what they propose to do about the problem and whether they still agree with their right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath that there is no problem and there is no football hooliganism.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook then trivialised the entire debate by his stupid remark about people standing in a stand where there are seats. On such an occasion as this he should not demean himself by making such thoroughly irresponsible and stupid remarks.
As to the money available for ground improvements, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a number of important matters are raised in Lord Justice Taylor's report. He refers to the fact that there is such a thing as the Football Trust, which is funded by the pools companies from the spot-the-ball competition—£9 million per annum goes into the game from that. Since 1958, £120 million has been given to British football in that way. The Taylor report goes on to point out the income that goes into the game from the Football Promoters Association as a result of its use of the fixture list—£14 million a year goes to the Football League from that source.
Lord Justice Taylor suggested that there could be a levy on transfer fees. He also pointed out the considerable sums of money that go to the football authorities and the game as a result of television rights—last year £7 million went to the Football Association and £11 million went to the Football League as a result of those rights.
After the damning report by Lord Justice Taylor, in which he asks the football authorities to address themselves to their responsibilities, it would be irresponsible if right hon. and hon. Opposition Members were to allow a message to go out to the football authorities to the effect that, once again, they can shirk their responsibilities because the Opposition, if the British people were ever to return them to power, would take all the responsibility off their shoulders and force the bill on to the taxpayer.

Mr. Steve Norris: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my hon. Friends and I join him in paying tribute to the 5,000 police officers who turn out


every Saturday, in all weathers, inside and outside grounds, to deal with the problem of football crowds? In view of the recommendation to use a great many more better trained stewards, employed directly by the clubs, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the time is right for the burden of the cost of such policing to be charged direct to the clubs?

Mr. Waddington: Lord Justice Taylor has said that realistic charges should be made for policing within grounds and he hopes that, in that way, the clubs will recognise that they should devote more effort to the training of stewards. Therefore, in time, those clubs would need to use fewer police officers in their grounds. An intolerable burden is placed on the entire community as a result of the way in which the game is conducted now. A tiny proportion of the cost of policing is paid for by the clubs; the vast amount of the cost is paid by the community. I therefore wholly applaud Lord Justice Taylor's recommendation that stewards should be trained so that fewer police officers are required at grounds.

Mr. David Blunkett: On behalf of the city of Sheffield and myself, I want to reiterate the condolences already expressed this afternoon from our city about what happened on 15 April 1989. I welcome the abandonment of the identity card scheme, and I welcome the penalties spelled out in the Taylor report.
Does the Home Secretary accept that it is prevention and not punishment that we are seeking and that investing in multi-purpose, continuous-use stadiums offers a sense of responsibility and the possibility of benefit to us all, and that therefore such investment should be seen as a responsibility of Government?
Does the Home Secretary accept that, while football has a substantial and major responsibility for putting its own house in order and therefore for investing in the sport, clubs such as Sheffield Wednesday which have invested in their grounds and not in large transfer fees need the Government to join in partnership with them in trying to ensure that we have grounds fit for the future, similar to those that Lord Justice Taylor saw in Europe and adopted as a model?
Does the Home Secretary accept the necessity of improving access, comfort, facilities, and entertainment in grounds? Does he further accept that it was penning, fencing and inadequate access that led to the tragedy at Hillsborough, not a lack of seating? Therefore, does he not agree that investing for the 21st century is the responsibility not only of the football clubs, but of the Government if we are to find a satisfactory and lasting answer for the future?

Mr. Waddington: Obviously, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that prevention is more important than punishment. However, I cannot accept that providing stadiums is the Government's responsibility. Like any other commercial enterprise, a football club owes a duty of care to those it invites on to its premises. It is absurd to argue that, when such a commercial enterprise fails in its duty to provide for the safety of its customers, the public should step in and pay the bill. When the hotel industry had to meet a prodigious bill to provide the new fire precautions that were demanded by the House, nobody said that the whole bill for that had to be paid by the taxpayer. Everybody said that that was the responsibility of the hotel industry.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend totally reject the double standards and hypocrisy shown by the Opposition, who have screamed for the Taylor report to be implemented, but are now squealing because they do not agree with some of its recommendations? Does my right hon. Friend agree that implementing the report will mean substantial costs to football in terms of all-seater stadiums, that it will mean an unavoidable drop in attendances and, regrettably—this is the part of the report that I find most distasteful—that it will mean the dropping of the one measure that gave some hope that we might at last combat hooliganism in this country?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport for having had the guts to start the scheme in the first place and for beginning to take some action after 20 years of argument, so will my right hon. Friends now have the guts to implement the other parts of the Taylor report that they like and to continue with the football membership scheme, which is the only method of identifying hooligans in and around football grounds?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend will remember that, during our debates in the House, we said that hon. Members would be able to come back to this matter after the enactment of the legislation and to reconsider it in the light of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Taylor. We have honoured our undertaking to the House by coming along today and saying that, in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's report, we do not consider it right now to proceed with the appointment of the Football Membership Authority. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that that is the correct course to take. However, it certainly does not mean that we are shirking our responsibility. I have made it absolutely plain that part I will stay on the statute book. If the alternative strategy does not work, we shall he in a position to return to the matter.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is there no sense of contrition on the Government Benches that they have had to abandon the scheme in the light of the criticisms made by Lord Justice Taylor, which precisely mirror the criticisms made by hon. Members of all parties, including those on the Government Back Benches? Is it not the case that the quality of the report and the substance of its recommendations, some of which will require additional primary legislation, emphasise how unwise the Government were to proceed to push the Football Spectators Act 1989 through the House, using a guillotine, after Hillsborough? Is not the proper course for the Government now to use this comprehensive and trenchant report to open a dialogue with the football authorities to address the problems of crowd hooliganism and crowd safety?

Mr. Waddington: I do not know whether the hon and learned Gentleman is following the line taken by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley); I am sure that he is too responsible for that, so I assume that he is saying, unlike the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, that he accepts the Taylor report. If I am right in thinking that he accepts it, and that he accepts that we must move to all-seater stadiums, he will be fair enough to acknowledge that it was the Government who proposed all-seater stadiums last summer.

Mr. David Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement, and I welcome Lord Justice Taylor's report. May I speak for the smaller clubs in football? The Football Spectators Bill gave an opportunity for football and the Government to work together, through the Football Membership Authority, to produce much-needed revenue from the identity cards, to enable us to bring our football stadia up to standard.
Football has now dug an even bigger hole for itself by mobilising its troops against the Government's proposals, which has resulted in smaller clubs facing the cost of putting seats into their stadiums, which they clearly cannot afford. Once again, the big clubs, which have brought about the demise of football, have won their argument. They will be able to afford the proposals, but, as sure as day follows night, smaller clubs will go bankrupt. Football has pressed the destruct button by backing this proposal.

Mr. Waddington: I am not sure whether football has backed it or not, but my hon. Friend is quite right. Many of those who fought so long against the idea of a football membership scheme may not be quite so happy today, because the alternative strategy proposed by Lord Justice Taylor will undoubtedly be extremely costly. Hon. Members will see when they read the report that Lord Justice Taylor expects most of the cost to be met by the clubs.

Mr. Stanley Orme: As a member of the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Football Spectators Bill, and having heard the Home Secretary today, I despair at his attitude and response to the Taylor report. Surely he should now be advocating the Government setting up a round table conference—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Taylor report should be the basis for such a conference and every interested body should be invited to it. The House should then be given a report. Why will not the Government do that?

Mr. Waddington: I see nothing wrong with discussions. One should always keep talking to interested parties, but the point of the Taylor report is not that we should have a round table conference but that the clubs should address themselves to their responsibilities. That is the message that must go out from the House today. The time has long passed when the clubs can just come along and have a cosy chat. The time has come when they must measure up to their responsibilities and duties.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the police will be grateful for the tributes paid to them by Lord Justice Taylor—tributes which have been generously endorsed by my right hon. and learned Friend this afternoon? Is he further aware that the police will welcome paragraph 250 of the report, which deals with the excessive consumption of alcohol; and the interesting proposals for earlier kick-offs on Saturdays, thus providing less time for supporters to kick their heels in bars around the towns in which football stadiums are situated; and the suggestion that consideration should possibly be given to Sunday matches? What is the Government's response to those observations?

Mr. Waddington: I hope that the football authorities will consider carefully Lord Justice Taylor's suggestions about the possibility for earlier kick-offs and Sunday matches. Lord Justice Taylor was apparently urged by some witnesses to suggest that we were wrong to put on the

statute book all our restrictions on the consumption and serving of alcohol in the grounds. I am glad to say that that is yet another instance of Lord Justice Taylor making it absolutely plain that the Government were right in their action. Incidentally, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was hopelessly wrong on Second Reading when he said that it was not a good idea to restrict the sale of alcohol in the grounds.

Mr. Heller: Does the Secretary of State accept that I wholly agree that we should have all-seater stadiums? I am delighted that both Liverpool and Everton football clubs have accepted that and believe that it is vital. I know that there is some opposition to it, but when the general public understand that they will get a better deal from all-seater stadiums, they will accept it wholly. Hooliganism was not the issue at Hillsborough.
May I draw attention to paragraphs 14 to 21 of the report, which are the most important? I have my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to thank for giving me a copy of the report. Nobody else did. The Government did not give me a copy. At Hillsborough, 95 people died, many of whom were my constituents. Those people came from Liverpool and the Merseyside area, but also from elsewhere.
I agree that identity cards should be eliminated, but the issue before us should be safety. That is my concern and the concern of my constituents. I want a clear declaration from the Government that Lord Justice Taylor's proposals will be carried out so that our people will never again face the problems that they faced and so that there will be no more deaths at football matches.

Mr. Waddington: I said that the Government accepted the detailed proposals in the report about safety. For the convenience of the House, there is in the Vote Office a schedule which sets out clearly how we propose to proceed. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's statesmanlike, sensible remarks about all-seater stadiums, and I hope that he will have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be a debate on the matter this week, so today questions should be asked of the Home Secretary rather than long comments made which might be made more happily in a speech.

Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the clear message of the report is that clubs must now be properly managed for the benefit of spectators and that there must be a clear commitment to safety and proper investment by clubs and their managements in upgrading the facilities, as well as confirming the Government's recommendations for all-seater stadiums?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is right—there must be an improvement in standards. The best way to show our respect for those who died at Hillsborough is to ensure that there is a real improvement in the conditions that people have to endure when they visit football grounds.

Mr.Joseph Ashton.: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no such thing as the football industry, to which he keeps referring? Some 99 per cent. of clubs do not pay dividends, do not make profits and rely


on share and director subsidies and raffle ticket selling by the fans. Why is it that, when there was a public safety angle to the salmonella in eggs problem, the Government quickly subsidised the farmers, even though they have a profitable industry? Why is it that, when a Bill is introduced to privatise the electricity industry, the Government offer massive subsidies to dispose of the nuclear sector when stations are being decommissioned? Of course, they had to back down because private industry would not touch it.
Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman follow the example set by the 1966 Labour Government, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) gave a massive grant to football for the 1966 World cup? Such grants would tremendously improve football grounds.

Mr. Waddington: When a commercial enterprise invites people on to its premises, it has a duty to ensure that those premises are safe.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some Conservative Members are delighted that the football identity scheme has been put into cold storage? Does he ever watch on television any of the great sporting events in America? If so, has he noticed that those great events are family affairs to which people take their children? Can we not learn something from the American experience? Is not the answer what the Taylor report recommended—all-seater stadiums?

Mr. Waddington: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I also agree with what Lord Justice Taylor said about there having been a blight on the game. We must improve conditions, and I hope that when that happens it will have an effect on crowd behaviour.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Although we have not had time to read the report, I have no doubt that, based on the interim report, Lord Justice Taylor and his assessors have done an excellent job. If the report's recommendations are acted upon, that will be the key to the future of football.
Is the Home Secretary aware that there will be an interim period before the report's recommendations are carried out? Is he further aware that, despite disorders in previous years—outside, not inside the ground—all in Sheffield were agreed that the club's previous plan was a good one? If it had been carried out, the disaster would not have happened. I have not read the Taylor report, but I ask for an assurance that, in the interim, the plans of each football ground, which have been drawn up in association with local councils, will be reconsidered and put into effect—something that did not happen at Hillsborough.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The report says, among other things, that there must be an absolutely clear agreement between the police and the clubs setting out whose responsibility it is to do what. One of the terrible facts about events at Hillsborough is that some people did not seem to know what was their duty and what was the duty of others.

Mr. Jim Lester: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Lord Justice Taylor has done a signal service to the Government by taking a dispassionate, cool, analytical look at football, by taking

evidence from all sources and by listening with great care to supporters, players and all those who wanted to give evidence? As a result, he has produced a report that I accept in every respect. It ill behoves hon. Members, whether on the Conservative or the Labour Benches, to criticise bits of the report that they do not like.
Does not the report also signal the mistake that was made in putting through legislation without consultation and, without careful consideration in Committee? I served on the Football Spectator Bill Committee. Were not all the recommendations in Lord Justice Taylor's report put forward in Committee and rejected by a majority of Members who perhaps were not entirely cognisant of the issue? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that we never again undertake legislation in that way?

Mr. Waddington: I agree with my hon. Friend's reference to the cogency of the report. It is a document that repays careful study. I cannot agree with his strictures on the Football Spectators Act. That Bill was introduced after effort after effort had been made to persuade those responsible for the game to take action themselves. The Government were forced to take action because those responsible would not do so.

Miss Kate Hoey: Will the Home Secretary explain to the House the role that he envisages for the Minister for Sport in the implementation of the recommendations of the Taylor report? I put that question in view of the fact that the Minister for Sport led us through the disastrous Committee to which I was a party. What does the Home Secretary intend the Minister for Sport to do?

Mr. Waddington: The scheme of the Act involves the setting up of a Football Licensing Authority, which, in turn, will set in train a mechanism that will lead to all-seater stadiums. The Minister for Sport was responsible for putting on the statute book an Act that allows for the setting up of the Football Licensing Authority.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. and learned Friend will recognise that this report is just the latest indictment of the directors of football clubs for their complacency in failing to do more about stadiums and conditions for the fans. Directors should now be pressed to accept their responsibilities. The Government's responsibility must be the protection of the millions of people living close to stadiums, or along the routes thereto, who are not the least bit interested in football. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the report's recommendations about the use of attendance centres, tagging, and so on, are implemented quickly so that the hooligans may be controlled?

Mr. Waddington: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said about the responsibility that now rests on the industry. I want to make it absolutely plain that all that I have said this afternoon is contained in the report. It is Lord Justice Taylor who has addressed these matters and has come to the conclusion that those in the industry must show a new responsibility.

Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Home Secretary accept that the report's recommendations on safety and improved facilities, which are long overdue, will be welcomed widely? Does he accept also that the virtual


rebuilding of grounds that is involved in the provision of covered all-seater stadiums is quite beyond the resources of most third division and fourth division clubs, many of which have been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for years? The Government provide substantial public help to commercial undertakings in the arts. Why do they refuse to do likewise in order that our national game may be brought up to a decent standard?

Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Taylor report, he will be impressed by what Lord Justice Taylor has to say about the opportunities that are open to clubs to attract new revenues and by the money that is available already. One must put this matter in perspective. If the Football Association and the Football League continue, year by year, to obtain from television rights the same amount of money as they obtain now, they will have drawn, by 1999, no less than £162 million from that source alone. Nobody has suggested to me that the total cost of providing an all-seater, covered stadium would be more than £162 million.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On behalf of hon. Members some of whose constituents died at Hillsborough, and who are in contact with support groups of parents and friends of those victims, I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that the Taylor report, with all its implications, is very welcome. He no doubt realises that those people will share the view that had there been an all-seater stadium at Hillsborough on that dreadful day the accident that led to this report would never have occurred in any circumstances. Will he, in the light of what has been said about transfers—we are all aware that the £1 million footballer is not uncommon—give serious consideration to primary legislation on a levy, so that money from transfers may be put into ground safety to make sure that spectators enjoy their football peacefully and out of danger?

Mr. Waddington: I agree that no more important safety measure could be introduced than all-seater stadiums. I do not think that anyone would doubt that for one moment. I hear what my hon. Friend says about a levy on transfer fees, but it is for the clubs to address that matter. It is no use saying that the money circulates round and round, because when one considers the sale of a player to a continental club and sees new money coming to a club as a result of such a sale, it is not easy to comprehend why that new revenue does not go to improving the ground.

Mr. Doug Henderson: The report demonstrates Lord Justice Taylor's understanding of football and football clubs, but that will come as no surprise to those in the north-east, who know that he spent many of his younger days as a spectator at St. James's park, Newcastle. Will the Home Secretary give a firm commitment that, before the Government come forward with any other proposals that may later have to be withdrawn, they will consult more widely with football clubs throughout the country and—particularly in respect of all-seater stadiums—with football supporters' asociations, who have most to gain and most to lose by any decision made in that regard?

Mr. Waddington: Obviously we shall be interested to hear all that the clubs have to say. However, I ought to

point out to the hon. Gentleman that the legislation to bring about all-seater stadiums is already on the statute book.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. and learned Friend will remember that, not too many years ago, there were signs of disturbance at race meetings throughout the country, but immediately afterwards the racing authorities put their house in order. They did so imaginatively and without asking for Government resources. As a consequence, a growing number of families attend race meetings throughout the country. Is not that a pointer to what should be done by the football authorities?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend makes a good point.

Mr. David Alton: I assure the Home Secretary there will be widespread support in Liverpool for Lord Justice Taylor's painstaking and workmanlike report. There will be support also for today's announcement by the Government that they will suspend the compulsory identity card scheme, and that some semblance of civilised surroundings will be provided for all football spectators and not just for the very rich.
I want to press the Home Secretary on one matter. He said that even the passage of time would not dull the pain of the bereaved. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that many families are still trying to obtain compensation but have been caught up in a protracted and litigious procedure that has not met their needs. The Home Secretary has received representations from myself and from other right hon. and hon. Members, Liverpool Law Society, and families who have been bereaved. What action is he taking to ensure that more expeditious procedures are introduced?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but that matter is not for me to consider. Those who have suffered loss, damage or bereavement as a result of someone else's negligence have a right to recover damages in the courts.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the delay in implementing the football membership scheme will throw a greater burden on the police in attempting to contain hooliganism outside grounds on match days. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware also that at present football clubs make no financial contribution to police activities outside their grounds. Clubs reimburse probably as little as 20 per cent. of total policing costs, the other 80 per cent. falling as a burden on local ratepayers, now community charge payers. Will my right hon. and learned Friend re-examine that aspect as a matter of priority to see whether it would be appropriate to ensure that football clubs contribute to the cost of policing outside their grounds?

Mr. Waddington: The position is even worse than that outlined by my hon. Friend. The Taylor report says that only about one tenth of the total cost of policing London matches is met by the clubs. The right way forward is that recommended by Taylor, which is to make realistic charges for the cost of policing inside football grounds, which will encourage clubs to train stewards and ultimately to have fewer police officers inside.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Home Secretary appreciate that getting rid of the terraces is likely


to affect the price of tickets, and is he resigned to football's becoming a rich man's game? Does he realise that many third and fourth division clubs are in a parlous state? My club, Newport County, ceased to exist because of financial difficulties. What ideas has he for direct assistance from public funds for the installation of grandstands at such grounds?

Mr. Waddington: I can only repeat that those who invite people to a sporting occasion as a commercial venture have a duty to ensure that the ground is safe for those people. It is their responsibility, and no other person's.

Mr. John Greenway: As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, the safety of the fan must be paramount. and it was on safety grounds that some Conservative Members felt unable to support the Football Spectators Bill. In the light of today's statement, does he agree that the real benefit of football membership schemes is that they would bring fans and football management closer in the interests of football, and that we should deal with the hooligan by taking tough and swift action against him? Will he assure the House and the country that, if they are to embrace all Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations, the Government will implement the aspects of law and order that deal with hooliganism, such as electronic tagging and the wider use of detention centres?

Mr. Waddington: I assure my hon. Friend that we intend to take tough action against hooligans, and I shall be examining Lord Justice Taylor's precise proposals as a matter of urgency.

Ms. Joan Walley: Does the Home Secretary agree that ground safety is the most important aspect? He has said that football clubs must take the cost on board. Will he examine the various grants given by the Football Ground Improvements Trust to all Football League clubs? Having looked at the figures, he will probably agree with Opposition Members that it is the clubs in the third and fourth divisions and some in the second division such as Port Vale that are most in need of Government financial aid so that their grounds can be made safe for all the supporters who use them.

Mr. Waddington: Clubs in the third and fourth divisions will have a longer period over which to move from standing to all-seater stadiums. It is up to the football authorities to consider whether additional aid should be given to those whose revenue is smaller than that of clubs in the first and second divisions.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard for the subsequent business, in which a considerable number of hon. Members wish to participate. I will take three more questions from each side; then we must move on.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Lord Justice Taylor's report is a blueprint for action, not words, and that British football's international reputation will depend on the speed with which clubs implement the improvements that it recommends? How will my right hon. and learned Friend control hooligans who might otherwise go abroad and damage that reputation through their appalling behaviour at grounds on the continent and elsewhere?

Mr. Waddington: I did not mention this afternoon—because I think that it is well known to the House—the fact that we are moving swiftly to implement part II of the Football Spectators Act, a measure that I think even the Opposition applaud.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does the Home Secretary accept that the half dozen richest clubs in the country can well afford to install all-seater stadiums? What he seems not to understand is that no million-pound footballers play for West Bromwich Albion; that the television cameras will not be following me, or paying a fee, to watch Stockport County play Aldershot next Saturday; and that, for millions of people in this country, watching their home town football team is not a commercial proposition, as he so blithely puts it, but a long-standing commitment inherited from their parents.
How many football games has the Home Secretary been to see this year, and how many has the Prime Minister ever seen? Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks nonsense about clubs funding their own all-seater stadiums, will he tell the House how much money the Government take out of football through their pools betting levy?

Mr. Waddington: I do not doubt for one moment that those who go to football grounds do not think that they are going off on a business venture. However, that does not alter the fact that those who run the grounds are operating business ventures. It is for those who operate business ventures to ensure that they operate them properly and safely.
I think that I ought to invite the hon. Gentleman to look at what Lord Justice Taylor says about the pool betting tax. He makes a number of points, and says that the comparison that is often made with racing is not apt. He points out that there is far more scope for money to be taken out of the pools industry, but that that money could come out of the industry in a variety of ways—either more money from spot-the-ball competitions, or through a voluntary levy, or through an increase in the amount that is paid by the football promoters for the fixture list.

Mr. Derek Conway: My right hon. and learned Friend's firm statement will be greatly welcomed in Shrewsbury. The people of Shrewsbury have bitter memories of the effects of a visit by Middlesbrough fans which turned the town upside down.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the general public is concerned not just about safety at football grounds but also about safety outside football grounds? Will he remind those who call for more public funds that substantial sums of public money have to be made available to fund the 5,000 police officers who are needed to protect the non-football-watching public from the effects of hooliganism?

Mr. Waddington: It is quite disgraceful that a game should be run in such a way as to make it necessary for 5,000 police officers to be used every Saturday afternoon to keep the crowds in order.

Mr. Roland Boyes: All of us want people to be safe and improvements to grounds to be made, but the Home Secretary neither knows nor understands football. I hope that he will follow the example of the Minister for Sport and accept my invitation to Hartlepool United's next home match, when he might


gain a greater understanding of the problems that fourth division clubs have to face. Does he not accept that, without both direct and indirect Government aid, a large number of third and fourth division football clubs will not be around in 1999 to build all-seater stadiums?

Mr. Waddington: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit Hartlepool United. I shall consider it carefully and will have a word with him after questions on the statement. I am afraid that I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's question; I was so overcome by his invitation.

Mr. Alistair Burt: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that in recent years, particularly since the Bradford fire, a number of additional safety burdens have been placed on clubs. He may also be aware that one of the problems has been the conflicting requirements of the various safety authorities—the local authorities, the fire brigade and the police. Sometimes they have asked for different things. Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Football Licensing Authority will exercise some supervisory mechanism so that no longer will too many people ask the clubs to perform different safety functions which they just cannot perform? Will the Football Licensing Authority remove that problem, particularly for the smaller clubs, as it has cost them dear?

Mr. Waddington: Lord Justice Taylor certainly confirmed our earlier view that there simply must be a licensing authority to supervise the way in which local authorities exercise their certification procedures. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress how necessary it is to have such a body.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have been unable to call all hon. Members who wished to participate. I shall certainly bear their claims in mind when we discuss this matter again.

Mr. Denis Howell: I suppose that it is a great compliment to be grossly misquoted twice by the Home Secretary during questions on one statement. I remind him that, when I said that there is no such thing as football hooliganism, I meant that there is violence and hooliganism in society, of which football hooliganism is one part. The Government committed themselves at the general election to eradicating it, but it is worse now than when they came to office in 1979.
What on earth will the Government do about the World cup this year? Part I of the Act has gone, the Football Membership Authority has gone, the computers have gone and the possibility of feeding names into computers has gone. Unless the Government tell us what action they propose to take, in June this year all the people whom Lord Justice Taylor and the rest of us have spent

years discussing will be free to cause havoc in Europe. It is no good the Minister for Sport telling us that it is a matter for the Football Association. I want the Government to take the action that was proposed in part II. [HON. MEMBERS: "They will."] I know, but they will not have any names to feed into the computer. As a result of the chaos that the Government have brought about, what will happen in June is a matter of the greatest concern.
The Home Secretary should understand that some of us believe that all-seater stadiums are desirable and inevitable and wish to have them as soon as we can. However, although we asked the Minister four times in Committee, we still do not know whether 10,000 people at one match I described in Committee, who were allocated seats at Manchester City but refused to be seated, would be committing a criminal offence. Will the Home Secretary explain how we shall deal with that phenomenon?
Finally, does not the Home Secretary understand that, because of the free-market economy to which his Government are committed, transfer fees in Britain are determined by those paid in Europe? It is inconceivable that we could have a levy or a regulation on those fees because, as I understand it, it would be unlawful under European legislation. The Home Secretary's comments on that would be helpful.

Mr. Waddington: The point that Lord Justice Taylor made about transfer fees was that such large expenditure on transfer fees seemed rather grotesque and obscene when so much blatantly needed to be done to improve the premises into which people were invited.
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for my earlier strictures, but they were meant in good part to provoke him to respond. I must tell him that I was quoting exactly from his speech on Second Reading, I am afraid that his denials will not stand him in good stead, because his precise words were:
I do not believe there is any such thing as football hooliganism"—[Official Report, 27 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 916.]
I am afraid that those words will endure, and I shall not be able to resist the temptation to throw them back at him from time to time.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989 will be in operation before June, and that before then there will be negotiations with the Italian Government which will enable a list of corresponding offences to be drawn up, so that convictions for any of those offences in Italy can result in exclusion orders in Britain.
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has persisted with that ridiculous point. If he had studied the matter for one moment, he would realise that it is intended that the safety certificates will be so operated that eventually the terraces will go and the clubs will not be able to invite people to stand on the terraces. Quite clearly, when people go into a seater stand, it will be up to them to decide whether they stand or sit, but I believe that most of them will have the sense to sit.

Question Time

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the casualties of the practice of taking points of order arising out of questions is the opportunity for Ministers, with the total understanding and good will of the House, correcting themselves on points of fact. It is a bit difficult to raise a point of order one and a quarter hours later. It is within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) very properly asked the Energy Minister about his former press secretary, the Prime Minister's—

Mr. Speaker: Order. He may have done, but what has it to do with me as a matter of order in the House?

Mr. Dalyell: It has to do precisely with the practice of Ministers correcting themselves on points of fact. I shall not go into the substance of the issue. I simply draw your attention to the fact that, when the Minister of State said that he knew nothing of the matter, very overtly and within the sight of us all, the Secretary of State passed him what was clearly a ministerial note on it. That was understandable, because it would have been quite incredible had Energy Ministers not known about the actions of BNFL in sponsoring a highly paid civil servant.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is clearly a continuation of Question Time. I cannot take points of order arising out of answers. It is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Government or for the right hon. Gentleman to have it put right.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What can be further to it? It is not a point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: It is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: No. It is not a point of order which I can answer.

Orders of the Day — Employment Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
There is considerable pressure to speak in the debate. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to keep their speeches brief, please. I am not proposing to limit them to 10 minutes today, but if brief speeches are made, most of the hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate will be called.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 29 June 1983, in my maiden speech to this House, 1 referred to the closed shop as a critical area—critical for the personal freedom of individual workers as well as for the link between strikes and unemployment—in which the legislative support given to the individual was inadequate. On 8 November 1983, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Trade Union Bill, in which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) also took part, I criticised the Government for not taking action to remedy that injustice.
Although progress has been made, since 1983 it remains the case that what has so far been achieved is not enough. It is therefore a particular privilege for me today to move the Second Reading of this Bill, for it will provide the legislative support which for so long has been missing. It takes the final step in making the closed shop unlawful.
It is a hammer blow for the freedom of the individual to choose for himself whether or not he wishes to become a member of a trade union. It puts paid once and for all to the tyranny of forced association, which has for so long been cherished by the trade unions and the Labour party.
The Bill can be seen as the culmination of the long process of reform which began 10 years ago, when the first Employment Bill of this Government was introduced by my right hon. and noble predecessor, Lord Prior.

Sir David Mitchell: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves that point, members of the Select Plymouth Brethren are concerned that they believe it to be a requirement to employ trade unionists as a result of proposals in the Bill. They find that against their consciences. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider their point?

Mr. Howard: I shall carefully consider that, but I fear that I cannot hold out too much hope that it will be possible to accommodate the concern expressed by my hon. Friend.
I pay tribute to all my predecessors who have contributed to that process of reform, in particular my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who was responsible for the Employment Act 1988 and for the preparation of the Bill.
There can be no doubt about the transformation which has taken place in British industrial relations in the past decade. In the 1970s, this country lost, on average, 13 million days a year through strikes. Over the past three years, the average has been less than a third of that figure. By 1988, strikes were at their lowest level for over 50 years.
At the same time, we have seen the end of many of the most notorious restrictive practices which held back the growth of our economy in the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, we have seen improvements in productivity which were wholly out of reach in the previous decade. Manufacturing productivity has grown at over 5 per cent. a year since 1980—far better than the average of 1·5 per cent. in the 1970s. In the 1960s and 1970s, this country was bottom of the international league for productivity growth; since 1980, our record of productivity growth has been better than that of any other major industrialised country.
Nothing did more to drive investment away from this country in the 1970s than our record of strikes, poor productivity and overmanning. Nothing has done more over the past 10 years to convince investors that Britain is the place in which to invest than the reduction in the level of strikes, the improvement in our productivity and the elimination of inefficient and archaic working practices.
That transformation has occurred because this Government, unlike our predecessors, have had the courage to put sensible step-by-step reforms on to the statute book. Without our legislation, flying pickets would still be able to spread disruption far and wide as they did in the winter of discontent, millions more employees would still be working in closed shops imposed on them without the least regard to their wishes, and strikes would still be called by the intimidation of the massed meeting in the company car park, without any recourse to the secret ballot.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the closed shop, but may I return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell)? For obvious reasons of principle, the Brethren welcome the ending of the closed shop, but they argue that, if they are compelled to employ someone who belongs to a union, he will be compelled to serve two masters, which is unacceptable to them on religious grounds. Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider the reply that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West on this important issue?

Mr. Howard: I understand the reasoning behind the concern that has been expressed, but I fear that I can do no more, even for my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), than repeat the assurance that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). I shall consider the matter, but I am doubtful about the extent to which I shall be able to accommodate it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister, who is a lawyer and a member of a closed shop, explain why what has happened in the past two years has been contrary to what he has just been saying? Trade unionists in bus, rail and tube services, the Post Office, the National Health Service and the BBC and the National and Local Government Officers Association have scored victories

against employers to ensure that they do not fall behind inflation. If everything is so rosy, why do the Government continue to hammer ambulance workers, who are trying to get a decent wage increase? If everything is so good, why is everything so bad?

Mr. Howard: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman that he relishes and takes such joy and glee from the number of working days lost. I gave the House the figures for 1988—the last year for which figures are available. There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of working days lost through industrial action, and I would have hoped that the House would rejoice in that, because it should appreciate that that has led to tremendous improvements in Britain's economic performance and the economic prospects of our fellow countrymen.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The Minister appears to want to avoid the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the legal profession, which has been raised time and again when the closed shop has been discussed. As a lifelong trade unionist and ex-employee of the Trades Union Congress, I can tell the Minister that we like voluntary trade unionism, but we do not like working with free riders.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman likes voluntary trade unionism, I hope that he will not oppose the first three clauses of the Bill on the closed shop.
It is quite wrong to suggest that the law is a closed shop. Lawyers, like doctors, must obtain qualifications before they practise. Does the hon. Member for Bolsover believe that doctors should not be required to obtain qualifications before practising? That is an entirely absurd analogy, as everyone knows, not least the hon. Member for Sedgefield.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Minister feels strongly about geting rid of the closed shop and spoke of "tyranny" in that context. Why did not the Department or his predecessor bother to collect complaints on the closed shop? I wrote a letter to his predecessor, to which I received a reply on 16 November, about the number of employees who have complained about the closed shop since 1979. The reply says:
Complaints are received each year on the operation of the closed shop but it is not possible to establish accurately how many were made by employees.
Labour Members would be more convinced of the Minister's arguments if he produced some hard evidence of complaints of tyranny.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady evidently fails to understand that there is a clear point of principle at the heart of the Bill—that people should not be refused employment because they are or are not members of a trade union. The breach of that clear principle has led to much injustice in the past.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The Minister says that the principle has led to "much injustice". What injustice? Will he explain that, because I have negotiated closed shop agreements for 100 per cent. trade union membership? We always made provision for people who held religious convictions and did not want to join a trade union, but that is now being outlawed by the Bill.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. I shall remind him in a moment of some of the injustices that have occurred.
The principle underlying all our legislation has been the need to achieve a fair balance of rights between the rights of trade unions and those with legitimate disputes with their employers and the rights of employers and employees who simply want to get on with their business and protect their jobs. We believe that the role of law in industrial relations is to limit abuses of industrial power and to guarantee the democratic rights of trade union members. That is the principle that underlies the Bill.
The first three clauses of the Bill are on the closed shop and discrimination in recruitment on grounds of union membership. Conservative Members have always taken the view that no one should be refused a job because they do not hold a union card. That restriction on employment has no more place in any civilised society than a refusal to give a job to somone on the grounds of their colour or sex.
It is just as indefensible to deny someone a job because he is a union member as it is to deny someone else a job because he is not. The Bill is therefore entirely even-handed in its approach. It makes it unlawful to refuse a job either on grounds of union membership or on grounds of union non-membership. As a result, once the Bill becomes law, discrimination on grounds of trade union membership or non-membership will be every bit as unlawful as sexual or racial discrimination.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Will the Secretary of State explain what right he is giving to trade unionists if he is not giving them the right to have their union negotiate on their behalf? The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Bill is even-handed, but it is not even-handed if an employer may merely say to the worker, "Of course you can join a trade union but don't expect me to talk to your trade union about your wages and conditions." What does that achieve?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must know that negotiating rights are an entirely different matter. We are discussing the important principle that no one should be denied a job because he or she is a member of a trade union. That principle will achieve legislative support for the very first time in this Bill.
The Bill defines refusal of employment widely. It makes it unlawful for an employment agency to refuse any of its services to someone because he or she is or is not a trade union member and it specifically prohibits advertisements that discriminate on grounds of union membership. In each case, the remedy is a right of complaint to an industrial tribunal. If a trade union or any other person or organisation brings pressure on an employer to discriminate against people who are or are not union members, the Bill allows them to be joined to the proceedings and made liable for penalties.
Anyone who doubts the violation of civil liberties involved in the closed shop—here I come to the question asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer)—need only recall the thousands of people who were forced into union membership against their will by the last Labour Government's illiberal and indefensible legislation of 1974 and 1976. Hundreds of people were thrown out of their jobs without a penny of compensation as a direct result of that legislation, simply because they refused to join a trade union. As a direct result of that

legislation, the United Kingdom was held to be in breach of the European convention on human rights. Yet the hon. Member for Walton asks "What injustices?"
The Bill will put an end once and for all to that legacy of shame. It will strip the closed shop of its last vestiges of legal protection, and not a moment too soon.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, although the Bill will make the pre-entry closed shop unenforceable in law, a 100 per cent. voluntary trade union shop will still be legal and acceptable?

Mr. Howard: The terms of the Bill are entirely clear. The Bill will make unlawful the refusal of employment to anyone on the grounds that he is or is not a member of a trade union. There cannot be any doubt about that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State has made much play of injustices and the closed shop. What does he have to say to members of the National Union of Journalists in Aberdeen, who went on a legitimate strike and were sacked within 48 hours? Management now say that they will not, in any circumstances, discuss with the union the possibility of negotiations to end the dispute. Management say, "It's over. Too bad that they've got the sack, but that's the end of it." Those trade union members have been sacked simply because they tried to exercise their trade union rights. How does the Secretary of State propose to deal with cases such as that?

Mr. Howard: It has always been lawful—it was lawful under the legislation that the last Labour Government passed—for those who go on strike to be dismissed. That is a step that the employers are entitled to take under the law; that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Howard: No, I must get on.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.

Mr. Leighton: I am sure that on reflection—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Howard.

Mr. Howard: We are now given to understand—

Mr. Leighton: But the Secretary of State misled the House—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear to me and to the House that he is not giving way at this stage. I suggest that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) should wait a while and put his own points. I am sure that I would want to call him.

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State misled the House, no doubt unintentionally, and I am certain that, on reflection, he would prefer to deal with the point now.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Howard.

Mr. Howard: I am told that I have already given way eight times. I am anxious to deal with the provisions in the


Bill. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity to make a speech in due course, and I must get on.
We are now given to understand that the Opposition share our determination to get rid of the closed shop. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will make his party's position clear this afternoon. I hope that he will say, without equivocation, that the Labour party will not oppose the first three clauses of the Bill and, if he does, no one will welcome that volte face more warmly than me.
But I confess that I have a lingering doubt. For one thing, the Labour party's policy review is entirely silent on this subject. It has a long section entitled "The Right to Join a Union" but not a word about the right not to join a union. Perhaps that was an oversight. Perhaps the subject was regarded as so unimportant that it did not justify any pronouncement or even thought on the part of the Opposition.
It was not, it appears, until my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) intervened to put a question to the hon. Member for Sedgefield during our debate on the social charter on 29 November that the hon. Gentleman addressed the matter at all. My right hon. Friend asked about the implications of the social charter for the closed shop. As the Library brief delicately put it, the hon. Gentleman
found it difficult to respond to Mr. Raison's intervention".
The most cursory perusal of Hansard for 29 November will reveal just how much of an understatement that was.
To do the hon. Member for Sedgefield credit, he lost no time in seeking to put the matter right. Within three weeks, he was writing a letter to his constituents in which he clearly set out his support for ending the closed shop. The House might think that such speed of response would evoke warm enthusiasm on the Labour Benches. Judging by Labour Members' faces this afternoon, that enthusiasm is somewhat lacking.
One of the hon. Gentleman's shadow Cabinet colleagues told Tribune that the change of policy was "a gross mistake" and "totally unnecessary", and at the last count, 35 Labour Members had signed early-day motion 282, which says:
the closed shop … is of fundamental importance to the workers and the trades union movement".
The hon. Member for Walton sagely nods in his place. No doubt we shall hear from him later this afternoon. Various trade union leaders have been putting their own gloss on the situation.
I have high hopes of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I hope that he will make it clear that the Opposition now believe that strikes to enforce a closed shop should remain unlawful. I hope that he will make it clear that he believes that union-labour-only clauses in contracts should remain unlawful. I hope that he will join me in urging all trade union leaders to take immediate steps to dismantle the closed shops that still cover more than 2 million jobs in this country. There is no need to wait until the Bill is passed. They can take action now, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage them to do so when he speaks in a few moments.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take documents published by the Labour party with a pinch of salt? The Labour party's 1987

manifesto contained a commitment to publish a code of practice on trade union ballots on industrial action, but only last week the Labour party voted against such a document. The specific words of the manifesto that I have in mind are that the Labour party would act
by laying down general principles for inclusion in union rule books. These will be based on a right of union members to have secret ballots on decisions relating to strikes".
That is the sort of double-talk that we get from the hon. Member for Sedgefield.

Mr. Howard: I can certainly understand my hon. Friend's scepticism, which is no doubt well-founded, given the Labour party's record. But we must have high hopes of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, and we await with great interest his remarks this afternoon.
I want now to consider secondary action. The Government's position on that issue is quite simple. We do not believe that any business should be threatened with disruption unless there is a direct dispute between the employer and his employees. That is the position that the Bill will achieve. The scope for organising lawful secondary action was limited by the Employment Act 1980.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State seems to have finished his consideration of the first three clauses which deal with employment agencies and using information about trade union membership. Will the Secretary of State deal with organisations such as the Eonomic League which, for example, employs paid spies to attend anti-apartheid meetings to discover the names of trade union members who are also members of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in order to give false and misleading information to employers? While the Bill states that evidence from agencies like the Economic League might be used at an industrial tribunal, it does not make those organisations illegal. What protection will the Secretary of State provide for people, because those organisations currently get round the law by claiming that they do not keep information on computers?

Mr. Howard: There is no reason to make the activities of those organisations illegal. I understand that the particular organisation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is prepared to make information on individuals available to people who ask for it. This Bill provides the protection that no one can be denied employment simply for being a trade union member. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that, instead of introducing red herrings into the discussion which are irrelevant to the point at issue.

Mr. Tony Blair: With due respect to the Secretary of State, that is not a red herring. Clause 1(4) specifically makes unlawful the practice of unions holding lists from which they will accept people for jobs. Why should there not be a commensurate provision to allow people to take a case to a tribunal if they are refused a job for being on an employer's blacklist?

Mr. Howard: Those lists have nothing to do with the critical question of membership or non-membership of a trade union. For the purposes of the Bill, the critical criterion is simply whether someone is or is not a trade union member. The hon. Member for Sedgefield is guilty of introducing the same red herring into the discussion as his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Blair: With great respect, we deserve an answer to this point. Employers' lists may specifically refer to people because of their union membership. In so far as they do that, will the Secretary of State introduce the same provision as that in clause 1(4) in respect of trade union membership?

Mr. Howard: There is no need to introduce any such provision. The provisions in the Bill will be entirely clear. It will be illegal to refuse someone a job because of trade union membership; that is more than sufficient protection. The premise on which the hon. Gentleman bases his intervention is entirely wrong. The lists to which he refers are not simply lists of union members and his parallel is therefore mistaken.

Mr. Blair: I am afraid that the Secretary of State is wrong. Clause 1(4) deals specifically with lists relating to union members. In other words, clause 1(4) could have been subsumed under the general requirement in clause 1(1), but it is not. Clause 1(4) deliberately refers to the practice of using a list to discriminate against people who are not union members. In so far as employers use lists relating to union membership, why will the Secretary of State not have a similar provision banning them?

Mr. Howard: There is no evidence that lists of trade union members are used in the way in which the hon. Gentleman described. However, there is evidence that lists of trade union members—which are dealt with in the Bill—are kept and used for purposes that would circumvent the provisions in the Bill. There is a clear difference.

Mr. Blair: Let me make the Secretary of State this offer—

Mr. David Madel: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt, but some of us want to contribute if we are called. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is guaranteed to be called. Can you protect Back Benchers?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is totally beyond my control if the Secretary of State wants to give way as he is doing at the moment.

Mr. Blair: It is fair of the Secretary of State to give way, and I am grateful to him. Some of us believe that this point is very important.
Let me make the Secretary of State this offer: if we can produce evidence that such lists, in so far as they relate to union membership, exist and are used, will he undertake to legislate about them?

Mr. Howard: I will undertake to consider any evidence that is adduced. No doubt the evidence will be considered when those matters are dealt with at length and in detail in Committee. That is the appropriate way in which to deal with the matter.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Since the whole issue blew up a couple of years ago, I went out of my way to talk to people who work for the Economic League. It would be advisable if Opposition Members did the same. I understand that the league has approached Labour Members in an attempt to explain what the leagues does, but Labour Members have refused to speak to league representatives. I understand that, far from compiling lists

of trade unionists, the league simply compiles lists of individuals who set out quite deliberately to create industrial mayhem and disruption in industry.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Heffer: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Howard: No, I must press on.

Mr. Leighton: Give way.

Mr. Howard: No. My understanding of the matter is entirely in accordance with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). However, we can explore those matters at greater length and in detail in Committee.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Secretary of State give way now?

Mr. Howard: No, we must press on.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise this point, but I appear on the Economic League's list twice. Will the Secretary of State tell us how people like me who, over the years, have consistently—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair. A point of order must be something that the Chair can answer, and I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Howard: I hope that the Committee of Selection will recognise the keen interest of the hon. Member for Walton in these matters, and will invite him to join the Committee. I am sure that his presence would give great pleasure to the hon. Member for Sedgefield.
The scope for organising lawful secondary action was limited by the Employment Act 1980 to employees of customers and suppliers of the employer in dispute. However, in March 1988, we saw just how damaging the threat of secondary action could be to British job prospects.
In that year, Ford had planned to invest £40 million in a new electronics plant at Dundee, creating 1,000 jobs. It had negotiated a single-union deal with the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Other unions, led by the Transport and General Workers Union, complained that the AEU had thereby broken TUC rules. Mr. Ron Todd announced that all components from the new plant would be blacked. So Ford took its plant, its £40 million and its 1,000 jobs to Spain.
Mr. Bill Jordan of the AEU rightly described that form of threatened secondary action as the
unacceptable face of trade unionism".
The Opposition, under their TGWU-sponsored leader uttered not a peep of protest at that wanton loss of jobs. We do not want that to happen again. That is one reason why clause 4 of this Bill will ensure that no union ever again has the protection of the law if it behaves as the TGWU did over Dundee.
The Bill also breaks new ground on tackling the problem of unofficial action. Let us be clear: unofficial action is and always has been a major problem in this


country. More than 20 years after the Donovan commission drew attention to the damaging effects of unofficial action, it is still the case that some 75 per cent. of strikes are unofficial. That means that they take place without being authorised in accordance with union rules and without being put to the test of a secret ballot. Last year, some 40 per cent. of days lost through strikes were the result of that sort of unofficial, unauthorised, unballoted industrial action.
Furthermore, unofficial action is almost a unique blight on this country's industrial relations. It is far less common in other countries and virtually unknown in some. And What is perhaps particularly relevant to this debate is that it is unlawful in countries such as Germany, the United States, Canada, Sweden and Denmark.
Unofficial action damages jobs and businesses and, as we saw last saw summer, it can disrupt the life of the community as a whole; and it can do all this without the trade union having to accept any legal liability for the consequences of the action or even having to give financial support to its members who are on strike. Unofficial action is a classic case of power without responsibility.
The Bill corrects two anomalies in the law as it affects unofficial action, and in doing so it will, I believe, significantly discourage such action in the future.
In the first place, the Bill corrects the manifest anomaly that unofficial action—even when organised by shop stewards or other union officials—does not have to be put to the test of a secret ballot. The effect of clause 6 is to put strikes organised by shop stewards and other lay officials on the same basis as strikes organised by national or regional officials.
If a union fails to ensure that strikes organised by its shop stewards have majority support in a secret ballot, that union will forfeit immunity, just as it does now in the case of a strike organised by its national officials. If there has been no ballot and the union wishes to keep its immunity, it will need to repudiate the strike as soon as possible. That repudiation will have to be unequivocal.
That means that it will no longer be possible for unions to ignore unofficial strikes or to use them in order to damage employers without risk to union funds—where they are not confident that the majority of their members would support official action in a secret ballot.
The second anomaly that the Bill will correct concerns the law on unfair dismissal. The law in this country has always provided that anyone who goes on strike in breach of his contract of employment is liable to immediate dismissal. That has been the position under successive Governments, but the law on unfair dismissal means that, if he is to avoid any risk of complaints to a tribunal, an employer must dismiss either every single one of his employees who goes on strike or none at all.
In the context of unofficial action, that is an unreasonable constraint on an employer whose business may be seriously damaged by a strike organised by a handful of troublemakers. We believe that in that situation the employer should have the option of dismissing strikers selectively without the risk of being taken to an industrial tribunal

Mr. Leighton: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Howard: I am sorry, but I must press on. I have already given way generously.

Mr. Leighton: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will not give way.

Mr. Leighton: The previous Secretary of State was much more courteous.

Mr. Howard: That option will be available only in cases of unofficial action which is not organised by a shop steward or which has been repudiated by the trade union concerned. Furthermore, the Bill provides that, in cases of repudiation, the option of selective dismissal will not be available until a full working day after the union has taken the decision to repudiate. That will give the union time to let its members know that the strike does not have its support, and time for the strikers to return to work.
The provisions of the Bill will ensure that unions take full responsibility for strikes organised by their officials—whether shop stewards or general secretaries. This Bill will ensure that in future strikes organised by shop stewards are either explicitly repudiated or put to the test of a secret ballot. The Bill will ensure that, in future, everyone will know exactly where he stands in cases of unofficial action—not just the union, but its officials, its members and the employers whose business is the target of action. That is why I believe that the Bill marks a positive step forward in enabling employers and unions alike to tackle the problem of unofficial action which has bedevilled industrial relations in this country for far too long.

Mr. Blair: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us of another country within the European Community that allows the dismissal of people on unofficial strike without recourse to a court or tribunal?

Mr. Howard: There are many EC countries in which all unofficial strikes are unlawful. One must look at the entire legal context before one starts to make comparisons on that point. We can look at this matter in Committee, but the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House if he is suggesting that, for comparative purposes in such matters, one can get a true appreciation of the subject by taking one element in isolation, as he has sought to do, without looking at the general position in its proper context.

Mr. Blair: rose—

Mr. Howard: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to speak. We shall be able to debate the matter in Committee.
The Bill's provisions on unofficial action are fully in accord with the principles underlying all our previous legislation: that those who exercise industrial power should take responsibility for their actions, that they should be accountable to the people they seek to represent and that they should operate within clear legal limits which protect the community, businesses and jobs.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield and his hon. Friends may oppose the provisions today. I am confident that, in due course, they will become as recognised and as widely accepted a part of our legal framework as have the other reforms which we have introduced in this sphere in the past 10 years.
The remaining clauses amend previous legislation so as to extend the rights and protection the law provides in a number of areas. Clause 5 provides people who work under contracts for services with the same right to a ballot before being called on to take industrial action as people who work under contracts of employment already enjoy. Clause 8 extends the range of issues on which the trade union commissioner can give assistance to trade union members. Clause 10 provides a simplified procedure by which codes of practice may, with the approval of Parliament, be amended in the light of changes in the law.
Clause 11 provides for the merger of the redundancy and national insurance funds. That will simplify their administration, but will not affect the entitlement of employees to redundancy and other payments in any way. Finally, clause 12 will enable all secondary school pupils to benefit from work experience from the beginning of the summer term in their penultimate year at school.
This is the fifth major Bill to reform industrial relations that the Government have introduced since 1979. Each Bill has been opposed by the Labour party, but each Bill in turn has now become an accepted part of the framework of industrial relations in this country. On issue after issue, we have been told by Opposition Members that our legislation was unnecessary and would not work. On issue after issue, they have been proved wrong.
The role of the law in restraining the abuse of trade union powers and in guaranteeing the democratic rights of trade union members is no longer in question. That is why opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that our legislation has the support not only of the overwhelming majority of the British people, but of most trade unionists.
What is the policy of the Labour party on the reforms? The hon. Member for Sedgfield is a master of honeyed words, but the latest authoritative statement on these matters comes not from him, but from his colleague in the shadow Cabinet, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
The latest issue of The Labour and Trade Union Review contains a long interview with that hon. Gentleman, whose smiling countenance appears on its cover. He deals in some detail with his party's attitudes to these matters. He refers clearly, explicitly and unequivocally to his party's policy towards what he calls the "Tory trade union legislation". He says:
We shall repeal all of it. There's no little bits you can keep of it. There is nothing you can keep of this legislation".
In fairness to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, he seems to have the clear support of the leader of his party. In 1986, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said that Labour would "undo the lot". In 1988 he said:
our commitment is to clear it".
Where does the hon. Member for Sedgefield stand? Over the weekend, I wrote to him asking him to repudiate his hon. Friend's statement. I hope that he will do so without equivocation tonight. If he does not, we shall know that the hon. Gentleman's words count for nothing and that he is quite without authority to speak for his party. We shall know that it is to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that we should look and listen if we want an authoritative statement of the Labour party's position.
Our position is clear. We believe that the law should protect the trade union member and the worker who does not wish to become a trade union member. We believe that

the law should protect the community at large from the abuse of trade union power. We believe the law should protect the creation of jobs. That is the philosophy behind all our trade union legislation since 1979. Those are the principles of this Bill.
The Bill will extend personal liberty against the closed shop, and safeguard jobs and prosperity against the threat of unofficial industrial action. It will protect our freedoms, improve our industrial relations and strengthen our economy. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: The Secretary of State dealt with the provisions relating to secondary action and to unofficial action with less than total enthusiasm. When he spoke on the radio the other morning, he told us that the Bill would be the Government's last piece of trade union legislation, but he left many of us wondering whether he regretted that it is his first. Having heard his speech, we can now see that he himself acknowledges that there are major problems in the legislation, especially with regard to secondary action and unofficial action. I shall deal with those later, because I must first tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill is important as much for its priorities as for what it proposes.
We have the highest inflation rate of all comparable countries and the largest balance of payments deficit of all EEC countries, including Greece and Portugal—a deficit which encompasses new industries as well as old, developing nations as well as developed and capital goods as well as consumer items. Our interest rates are higher in real terms than anywhere else in the western world, and added £3 billion to industry's bill in the past year alone. However, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, above all we have a deficit in training skills. We have a forecast shortfall of 80,000 to 100,000 computer analysts alone by the mid-1990s. In any one year, half Britain's work force receives no training. We have gaps in our mathematics, languages and basic educational qualifications. Indeed, the head of the Government's Training Agency said recently:
at every level we are towards the bottom of the training league table.
The previous Secretary of State for Employment said in a statement that I can only assume was not meant to be complimentary that the results of his own "Training in Britain" survey were "mind-boggling". However, instead of the Government introducing a Bill to improve skills, upgrade training, encourage investment and stimulate innovation, we have a Bill that is a leftover from the old agenda of the industrial cold war. The Secretary of State has introduced a Bill designed not to solve the real problems of Britain today, but to deal with the lingering malaise of the present Conservative party—

Mr. Howard: Was it simply an oversight that the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention not only our productivity and growth in earnings, but the item in our economic performance that is most relevant to the Bill, which is jobs and employment? The hon. Gentleman omitted to mention the 2·75 million jobs that have been created in this country since 1983 and the fact that our unemployment rate is now a fraction of the average in the European Community.

Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's claim of 2·75 million jobs has been comprehensively


debunked, not least by the report published recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife Central, (Mr. McLeish), which has not been challenged in any particular by the Conservative party. I advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that unemployment is now higher than in 1979, when the Government came to power, and nothing can hide the fact that on inflation, interest rates, our balance of payments, and skills, after 11 years of Tory government this country is now woefully behind.
Despite all that, the first measure that the new Secretary of State for Employment brings before the House as the stamp of the new regime is a Bill about which he has once again given us the ritual incantations about the evils of the trade unions and of the over-regulated workplace. We were told that those were the problems when the Government introduced the Employment Act 1980, we were told that those were the problems when the Government introduced the Trade Union Act 1984, and we were told the same in 1988 and in 1989. Now, 11 years on, when our trade unions are more constrained than unions practically anywhere else in Europe and when our Labour market is less regulated, we are still told that the trade unions and the overregulated workplace are to blame.
It is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's misfortune that the one thing that has changed beyond all doubt is that now, when industry is fighting interest rates of the present level, when our education system is teaching fewer 16 to 19-year-olds than are taught in any comparable country, when out adult work force is now serviced by fewer training managers than there are now anywhere else in the EEC bar Greece and Portugal, the people of this country know that it is not protection in the workplace that is causing Britain's problems, but the fecklessness of Cabinet Ministers in their workplace. They have no one left to blame but themselves.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): When is the hon. Gentleman going to get to the Bill?

Mr. Blair: In a moment.
The Secretary of State set a context for the Bill; let me now set it in its true context. The Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress are now probably closer on training than they have been for years, and they are united in their anxiety to deal with 1992 and the greatest competitive challenge facing this country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be the only Employment Minister in Europe who wants to spend three or four months in Committee, pitting one side of industry against the other.
If all that we could say about the Bill was that it is merely irrelevant, that would be one thing, but it is not merely irrelevant. Much of it is wrong, damaging and unfair.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman note that in my constituency we have an excellent training establishment which is run by a trade union—the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union? Sadly, the rest of the trade unions decided that the EETPU had no right to belong to the TUC, which is a pretty good indication of the sort of trade unions that support the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Blair: There it is. That is the authentic voice of division. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that the CBI and the TUC are today close about the need for training. I am delighted that the training provisions in Esher are so good. The training provisions everywhere in Britain should be good, yet they are not, as is conceded by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
In the Bill the Government have laid down two tests about union membership. First, they have said that the provisions should deal with union membership in the same way as race and sex are dealt with. Secondly, they have said that the provisions should be in line with the European social charter. Clause I contains two major flaws and I should be grateful if these points could be dealt with when the Minister responds. Conclusive presumptions are made in clause 1 in that if people are refused a job when the job requirement is that the person either is or is not a member of a trade union, that person is conclusively presumed to have been refused a job for that reason.
Clause 1(4) also contains the conclusive presumption of refusal of a job for non-membership of a trade union. As far as I am aware, that system is unknown in both race and sex discrimination laws. The conclusive presumption means that the employer cannot even prove that there may have been another reason for dismissal. That is extremely rare in general law, and it would mean that a person could be refused a job for a wholly extraneous reason that had nothing to do with union membership or non-membership, yet he would still be entitled to claim.
I should be obliged if the Minister who winds up would deal with the following example. Five or 10 people apply for the same job. They could be refused on the basis that they were not on an approved list of union members; all five or 10 could then claim unfair dismissal and be conclusively presumed to have been dismissed for that reason in respect of the same job. That cannot possibly be right, and it is way out of line with race and sex discrimination law.
The Bill is not even-handed in its approach. Most people would consider it entirely reasonable that if the Bill describes a requirement for union membership—that is, for a list of people who are union members—the same provisions should apply to lists of people who may be discriminated against on the ground that they are union members. So there is no reason why the Bill cannot include a provision in very much the same terms as clause 1(4) to put an end to the obnoxious practices of the Economic League and the employers who go in for them. If the Secretary of State is serious about dealing with that problem, he should deal with it now. I take it from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier that, if we can provide evidence in Committee, he will legislate to this effect.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I have to go and make an urgent phone call while he is dealing with this point.
Will my hon. Friend join me—and, I am sure, the Secretary of State—in welcoming the dismantling of organisations in eastern Europe such as the Securitate? Will he also agree that the employment of private spies by public businesses in this country is obnoxious and to be condemned?

Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is right. One of the problems about the Economic League and the lists that it uses is that


they are not published, so people do not know that they are on them. Some of the most horrendous cases that have come to public notice have been in respect of people who had no idea that they were blacklisted.
As the Secretary of State knows, it is unlawful to dismiss someone for his union activities. There are higher penalties at law for dismissing a person for that reason, but it is not wrongful to refuse to employ people on the basis of their union activism. Surely that is a gap that this Bill could fill, and it would be in line with an even-handed approach.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned clause 1 only in the context of two technical amendments which he hopes can be resolved in Committee. Will he confirm here whether the Labour party officially accepts the ending of the closed shop and will not in any circumstances seek to reintroduce it?

Mr. Blair: I have already made that absolutely clear.
The two flaws that I have identified are not technical: they are substantial. If they are dealt with, fine. Let us see whether the Minister will deal with them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have just answered it. Perhaps Conservative members should wake up. I have made it clear that if the flaws in clause 1 are dealt with we shall be happy to support it—if not, we shall not. We shall support it if it is even-handed and drafted in accordance with the European social charter. I cannot put it more plainly than that.
I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having passed so quickly through secondary action and unofficial action this afternoon, and I shall expose why he did so. I imagine that he has done his homework rather carefully now that the Bill is having its Second Reading. The Government proposition is that there is no set of circumstances, no matter how close the connection between one group of employees and another, in which the first group in dispute with its employer is entitled to ask the second for assistance. In other words, apart from a limited right in respect of picketing, all forms of sympathy and secondary action are to be forbidden.
That proposition is so manifestly unfair and unreasonable, for the reasons that I shall adduce, that it is fatal to any pretence of even-handedness in the Bill. What is being forbidden is not merely the right to take sympathy action but the right to ask for it. If one group of employees want another to take sympathy action they can only ask: they will still have to go through balloting procedures, and, given the limitations on the generosity of human nature, there are bound not to be many occasions when such a request for action is granted.
To prevent such requests in all circumstances would be unreasonable and unpractical, but hon. Members need not take my word for that. Lord Prior went through all this in detail—the Secretary of State called him in support of his claims this afternoon—on Second Reading of the Employment Act 1980. Lord Prior was quite definite about this:
the only other position that we could take would be to say that there will be no immunity for anything other than primary action"—
In other words, the Government's position today.
I do not believe, for reasons that I shall give, that that is either a practical or reasonable position to take. We have sanctified that there should be no limitations on how far

immunities stretch. We are seeking to reach a position which we believe is fair and which recognises the traditional rights of the trade union movement.
The ability to take limited secondary action has thus been in existence for 10 years. Where is the clamour to alter it? Where is the desire on the part of employers, let alone the trade unions? Lord Prior went on to utter words that Conservative Members should take to heart:
the clause … seeks a position which is balanced and reasonable. Simple repeal of the immunities for all secondary action would not be right. I know that some of my hon. Friends would query that remark. I shall … tell them why.
I have said on a number of occasions from this Box that, just as it is not reasonable to leave trade unions with more power than they need in the vain hope that they will not misuse it, so also it would be unreasonable to weaken them to the extent that they are unable to defend their members against attack. Finding the right course calls for enormous effort and thought on the part of us all. It will not be achieved by reburnishing our prejudices."—[Official Report, 17 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 1490–98.]
That is what this Bill is all about.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has made great play of Lord Prior's words in 1980. Will he now deal with the departure of Ford from Dundee in 1988?

Mr. Blair: That was a dispute between two unions; it had nothing to do with secondary action, and it is ludicrous to suggest that it provided a basis for legislation against all secondary action. Even if it was a case of secondary action, the Government are today proposing a ban on all sympathy action. That would mean that National Health Service managers could contract out ambulance work to a private company and the NHS workers could not even ask the private ambulance men to black the work that they were doing in their place.
Will the Secretary of State confirm the following example of how extreme the proposition is? It applies to circumstances in which a company shuts down its premises and moves the work to another company. That other company could even be an associated employer of the first company. Even if the second company were part of the same group of companies and the workers were part of the same trade union, doing the same work that the other employees were doing, the first group of workers would not be able to ask for support from the second for the primary dispute.
I hope that hon. Members realise how extreme the proposition is. An employer will be free to use his contractual or commercial power in any way he chooses directly to undermine and circumvent the industrial action of the union, but the union will have no commensurate right whatever to ask for sympathy action to make the action effective. I cannot understand how that can be explained as reasonable.

Mr. Heffer: Has my hon. Friend considered what happened at Tate and Lyle in Liverpool? The factory had been open for well over 100 years and had had only one dispute in that time, so it did not face any great problems, yet it was moved out of Liverpool and the building left derelict. Families had worked there for generations. but were put out of work. Does my hon. Friend recall what happened at Birds Eye in Kirkby? The factory was moved to another area. Again, there was no industrial dispute. There was no consultation and the anouncement was made on a Friday afternoon. Does my hon. Friend agree that Tory Members should consider that?

Mr. Blair: Surely hon. Members can see what a grotesque position the proposition leaves us in.

Mr. Eggar: Before the hon. Gentleman replies to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), will he reflect on the way in which he announced the Labour party's policy change on the closed shop? Did he consult his hon. Friends and the trade unions? Was the announcement in accord with the provisions of the social charter that he is enunciating now?

Mr. Blair: We have heard it all now—when a Minister has to get up and ask me about the internal democracy of the Labour party. It is touching to see Tory Members displaying their grief. There they were, all togged up in their party best for the party, and they put their hands into the magician's hat, hoping to pull out a nice white, bright, sprightly, lively rabbit, but instead find that they are holding a very dead fox. That is the truth of the matter. When, during a discussion on secondary action, a Minister has to refer to an earlier debate, we know how weak the Government feel their position to be.

Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) as an old dead fox?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I cannot adjudicate on an issue such as that.

Mr. Blair: We can see in the Bill issues which Tory Members do not like to discuss. Unfortunately for them, we will discuss them and discuss them now.
The Minister has consistently said that he wishes Europe and Britain to be the same on issues such as these. Indeed, the Green Paper makes great play of what happens in Europe. In France, sympathy action is allowed where there is a common professional interest between employees. In Italy, it is allowed where there is a "sufficient community of interest" either of an economic or contractual nature. In Denmark, a reasonable and fair interest between employees justifies sympathy action in law. In West Germany, where the position is complicated because of collective bargaining agreements that cover virtually an entire industry, making the position more restrictive, sympathy action is allowed where the employer who is the subject of sympathy action is doing the work of those on strike or where companies are associated. In Belgium, sympathy action is permitted where there is a direct interest, and in Holland it is allowed unless it is manifestly unreasonable. In Spain, it is allowed where those taking part share the same professional interests.
In other words, in every other part of the EEC jurisdiction, sympathy action is permitted, although it is limited; the labour court is given wide discretion when applying those limits; and workers have broader rights in other respects, not least the right not to be dismissed when lawfully on strike. In some jurisdictions, such as West Germany and Italy, an employer, not a union, can be injuncted for his importation of strike-breaking labour into an official dispute. The rights that are given abroad are infinitely more wide-ranging than those in the Bill.
The Government are also moving way out of line with the rest of Europe on unofficial action.

Mr. Howard: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I hope that he will tell the House in precisely what circumstances his party would make secondary action lawful.

Mr. Blair: I well understand the Secretary of State's desire to talk about anything other than what is in his Bill—

Mr. Howard: Answer.

Mr. Blair: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know the Labour party's policy, he can read the policy review. The only question that is relevant to the Bill is whether we support the Government in abolishing secondary action. We do not.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the policy review talks about making secondary action lawful where there is a "genuine interest" and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in a letter to The Independent published on 19 October asked for a definition of the phrase "genuine interest". We are still waiting for an answer. Why does the hon. Gentleman not take this opportunity to enlighten us?

Mr. Blair: I shall tell the hon. and learned Gentleman exactly why. We shall debate that in our good time, and we are debating his Bill today.
It is against the background of our being right out of line with Europe on secondary action that we come to unofficial action. In the Bill the Government do not merely seek to extend the procedures whereby a union is liable for unofficial action: they extend them to circumstances involving any official or committee of the union. An official, no matter how low, and any member of any part of any committee of the union will be able to make the union liable to action. That is wholly out of line with the normal agency rules for companies. The union will have to go through arduous procedures to dissociate itself. If a company claims that a union is conniving in unofficial action, it can already take the union to court.
Worst and most obnoxious of all are the provisions that would allow the selective dismissal of people on site without any recourse to an industrial tribunal. The Secretary of State ducked that in his speech and I shall explain why. In particular, I shall explain why he would not give way to me a second time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Only a second time?"] I shall let him intervene in my speech in a moment.
January's Employment Gazette carried an official statement about what the Government wish to do in this area. It stated:
The Government believes that employers in this country should have the same freedom to respond to unofficial action as employers in West Germany.
That is the test that the Government proposed for this legislation.
At present employees who are on strike officially or unofficially can be dismissed if they are all dismissed and there is no jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal. In other words, an individual has no right to strike, even where a union has immunity, and there is no right of appeal, even to an industrial tribunal. If an employer dismisses employees selectively, as the Government propose he should be able to do, contrary to a common misunderstanding, the dismissal is not automatically unfair; it is simply that the employee then has a right to


have the fairness of that dismissal tested before an industrial tribunal. In other words, he cannot be dismissed without the right of appeal. This is for perfectly understandable reasons: there may be circumstances in which such unofficial action is justified.
The proposal in the Bill is to allow selective dismissal, but without any right for employees to go to an industrial tribunal, no matter what the circumstances of the dismissal are. We are told that the justification for that is the position in West Germany and elsewhere. There is no clear rule about that in other countries. Many, such as France and Italy, allow the right to strike, even where the action is unofficial.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made West Germany the test—yet in that country, where an employer can dismiss when unofficial action is taken, the works council must first give its consent and, more important, the employee has the right of recourse to a labour court to claim that his dismissal was unjustified in all the circumstances. In other words, the position in West Germany is the same as it is in Britain today and not as the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends it to be. If the proposed changes are made, the law will be quite unfair.
I issue a challenge to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: if we can show that the law in West Germany is as I have stated it to be, and given that the test that he has formulated is that Britain must be equivalent to West Germany, will he agree to include provisions to that effect in the Bill?

Mr. Howard: The justice and the legitimacy of the proposed provisions stand by themselves. I justified them during my speech and I shall justify them further in Committee. There is no question of their requiring justification by reference to what happens in any other country.

Mr. Blair: We now know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with this issue so quickly during his speech. He says that the provisions are self-standing and are not influenced by what happens in other countries. Why, in his Green Paper "Unofficial Action and the Law", did he specifically cite the practice in other countries as justification for this legislation? There is the right to go to a tribunal in the United States, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Japan and Australia. The Government claim to rely on the practice in other countries, hut Britain will be the only country that does not allow that right.
The Employment Gazette is the official newspaper of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department. It said:
The Government believes that employers in this country should have the same freedom to respond to unofficial action as employers in West Germany.
Why are we not allowed that same freedom, when that was the test which the Government set? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that under the Bill an employer could provoke a walk-out—perhaps by wholly unreasonable behaviour—and sack the trade union officials for reasons wholly extraneous to the unofficial dispute—simply because he does not want trade unionists—yet there will be no right even to claim that a dismissal was unfair?
The Government cannot claim that such a provision is fair or even-handed. It is a typical Government measure. They take an idea—we know that it comes from No. 10 Downing street, as everything else does—push it beyond

the bounds of any external validity, carry it to the furthest extreme and end up justifying it no matter what the arguments against it.
This is a shabby, ill-thought-out and bigoted measure. Most of all, it is wrong because it looks back, not forward. We cannot address the challenges of the future through the prejudices of the past. It is the right hon. Gentleman's Government who are reburnishing their prejudices, as Lord Prior put it, in this Bill. A new decade should require a new settlement in industrial relations law, and part of the principles of that settlement should be first, that it is fair and even-handed between employers and unions; secondly, that it contains certain basic individual rights guaranteed by law; thirdly, that it marches in step and moves with the grain of what is happening elsewhere in Europe, especially as we approach 1992; and fourthly, that it should aim for stability in industrial relations, which is the vital prerequisite of the national effort that we require to put this country back on its feet.
If we are serious about the gap between Britain and its competitors—in training and skills, research and development, and technology and innovation—we cannot allow measures that will do nothing to assist the promotion of that stability. The Bill is unfair, it curtails certain individual basic rights, it moves us further out of line with Europe, it will provoke industrial conflict and, frankly, it is a Bill too far. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that; it was evident in his speech. The Bill is irrelevant in the issues it concerns. It is dangerous in much of what it proposes and we shall vote against it.

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall be brief. I do not accept what the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said. His speech was most notable for its omission of any reference to the vast improvement in industrial relations—for example, the reduction in the number of strikes and in the number of days lost. From my entirely independent point of view, the Bill appears to be a piece of legislation that has been brilliantly conceived and excellently put together. It was, of course, magnificently introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
My only sorrow is that the conversion of the hon. Member for Sedgefield—and conversion it was—came too late to enable him to become a sponsor of the Bill. However, I was more convinced about his conversion before he began his speech than I was as I listened to it. He rather skated over the closed shop issue. Indeed, it appeared to come as a shock and a surprise to many of his hon. Friends to be told that that was the Labour party's new policy.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is right in his approach. This Bill will go down in the history books as the Bill that brought to an end the closed shop in Britain—and by any standards that is a significant achievement. It is made doubly significant because it has been accepted by the Opposition. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sedgefield accepted it even before the Bill was published. There is now as broad a consensus as we are ever likely to have in the politics of industrial relations, and it is that the closed shop should be brought to an end. That is a significant political step. In the 1970s, the Labour party spent a great deal of time seeking to legislate to extend and strengthen the closed shop. There is no clearer


example of the revolution in industrial relations law in Britain than the attitude that the Labour party now takes and the policy that it now holds.
The Bill is significant for human rights. There was never any justification for men and women being forced to join a trade union if that was not their wish. That was the finding of the European Court, and I do not think that anyone would now challenge it. Above all, the Bill is significant for the future of trade unions because it marks a new era for them. It means that they will have to persuade people into membership rather than force them, as was previously the case.
So often, the closed shop has been a recruiting sergeant for the unions. It was not that people necessarily wanted to join a union, but that they knew only too well that that was the price that was put on the job. That price was sometimes paid willingly and sometimes reluctantly. Sometimes people refused to pay it, and they lost their jobs. That was the inexcusable consequence of the closed shop legislation.

Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the respectability, validity and credibility of the trade union movement are enhanced when unions operate on the basis of voluntary membership rather than on the basis of coercing people into becoming members?

Sir Norman Fowler: I agree entirely. It is healthy for trade unions and for the trade union movement. Indeed, I think that some good trade unions—not just the electricians union—have already adopted this practice.
When I worked on Fleet street in the 1960s, a reporter from one of the subsidiaries of The Times had an offer from another Fleet street newspaper. That offer was withdrawn for no reason other than that the reporter was not a member of the requisite trade union. Today, Fleet street is no longer the centre of the newspaper industry. Thanks to the action of a number of brave people, the situation in that industry has changed out of all recognition. But we should not forget that that was the closed shop in operation: no union card, no job. That is why the closed shop is being abolished.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lancashire Publications Ltd., which publishes one of our local newspapers and has for years negotiated with the National Union of Journalists, is now offering a pay rise dependent on there being no trade union activity? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is just as important that people should be entitled to belong to trade unions as to ensure that they may refrain from so doing?

Sir Norman Fowler: Yes. Indeed, that is one of the points of this Bill. As my right hon. Friend so rightly said, it provides that right for the first time. For the first time, people have the right to belong to a trade union. They cannot be excluded from membership. Since the early 1960s, I myself have been a member of the union to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. John Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, throughout the length and breadth of Britain, there have been thousands of recorded cases of people being denied employment because they were trade unionists? Under this Bill, the onus is still on the individual

to prove conclusively that an employer's reason for not giving him a job is that he is a member of a trade union. Providing that proof is virtually impossible.

Sir Norman Fowler: I believe that, when the hon. Gentleman goes through the Bill in Committee, he will cease to hold that view. This is the normal way of setting out industrial relations legislation. I am sure that everyone will want to do everything in his power to ensure that a person who is a member of a trade union is not excluded from employment by virtue of that membership. That is the purpose of the legislation. The approach is an even-handed one. This Bill brings the closed shop to an end. The post-entry closed shop and the pre-entry closed shop are both now ended. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, I hope that unions and employers up and down the country will not wait until this legislation has gone through all its stages in this House and in another place before starting to dismantle the closed shop arrangements.
I hope also that the change will be noted in the public service. I hope that in this regard the Government, as an employer, will take the lead. I do not know what arrangements exist in organisations such as Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us—if he knows—the extent of the closed shop in that field. But I hope even more that he will assure this House that any closed shop arrangements in the public service will be brought to an end immediately. That is important. The end of the closed shop is a challenge to sensible trade union leaders in this country.
In future, unions will have to attract members by offering services and by taking up issues such as training and pensions—issues about which their members are concerned. Unions that ignore that message will find their members drifting away and will find recruits hard to come by. Whether there is a future for a trade union will be a matter entirely for that union. In this regard, I certainly have no prejudice—as, perhaps, my union membership indicates. This Bill gives new rights in respect of union membership.
Nor am I at all concerned that the Bill's proposals in respect of unofficial action may have the side effect of strengthening the position of official unions in this country. It is ludicrous that we should have suffered such damage from unofficial strikes. What sets us apart from the rest of Europe and other countries is not the particular procedure but the amount of damage that is done to industry by unofficial disputes. It is ludicrous that it should be easier to take unofficial action than to take official action. Obviously I should prefer a situation in which there was no strike action whatsoever, but it seems to me that where there is strike action it should be taken by unions operating in the context of the law and subject to legal restraints such as the secret ballot.
In my view, the reform of industrial relations law is one of the great successes of this Government's period of office. We have seen a reduction in the number of strikes and a reduction in the number of days lost. We have seen union members—as, recently, at Ford's—not simply following their leaders into strike action. Opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that the public in this country support the reforms in industrial action that this Government has seen through.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield referred to my legacy to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
But the hon. Gentleman, too, has come into a legacy—a legacy from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). It is just possible, of course, that that was not the most welcome gift he received in 1989. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's position on the closed shop, as would anyone with any common sense. However, I say to him in all seriousness that he will have to answer the serious, important and crucial questions that my right hon. and learned Friend has put to him.
The current position of the Opposition is that they would allow secondary action where a genuine striker has had a genuine interest in the dispute. The Opposition would get rid of injunctions and sequestration. It seems to me that that all adds up to a set of proposals that would make striking very much easier. It is very much in the public interest that it should be known where precisely the Labour party stands on these issues. This is not simply a party political issue; it is an issue on which the public will want to have answers.
Above all—here I have some sympathy with one of the points that the hon. Gentleman made—the question now is, what are the real industrial relations issues in the 1990s? There is no doubt that reform of industrial relations law was the issue of the 1980s, but the process may not be at an end, even after the passage of this Bill.
The whole advantage of the step-by-step approach is that abuses can be corrected, but I should be surprised if the reform of the law were to have such dominating importance in our affairs over the next 10 years as it had over the last 10 years. It seems to me that the 1990s are much more likely to be—indeed, should be—about involving the work force more thoroughly than ever before. That is an issue that goes way beyond the issues of worker directors and worker councils. It goes into employee share ownership and profit sharing; it goes into team working, and all the rest.
The 1990s will also be about using the human resources at our disposal; about providing careers, not just jobs, for women; about providing opportunities for ethnic minorities and for unemployed people. But, above all, the 1990s—here I take up exactly the point that the hon. Member for Sedgefield made—will be about making our work force as professional, as skilled, as good, as it conceivably can be.
The 1990s will be about not only initial training but retraining—training through life. Every right hon. and hon. Member must understand and recognise that both are long-standing issues that go back way beyond this Government and the preceding Labour Government. Training has been a problem for the whole of this century.
Our experience of industrial relations shows that it is possible to tackle long-standing problems successfully. Ten years ago, no problem was seen as more intractable than had industrial relations, which were said to be too difficult an area to tackle. However, our experience over the past 10 years shows that, over a relatively sort period, British industrial relations can be not only changed but transformed.
If our industrial relations had not improved, Britain would not have attracted the kind of inward investment that it has. We would not be enjoying the attractive jobs record that we have. Inward investment also proves—this is an objective test—that other countries recognise the great skills inherent in the British work force. Otherwise, they would not want to base operations in this country.
For the 1990s, we must aim at developing to the full extent the skills of our work force. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on his speech, but at the same time I look forward to his efforts in other areas of importance to our nation.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The Bill is completely unnecessary and has no relevance to the real needs of British commerce and industry. It is not as though the Bill addresses great abuses. Once again, the Government are churning our anti-union legislation. Every two years a new Bill is introduced proving that the Government still think of the unions as the enemy within. Whereas other countries throughout the world co-operate in industry, the present British Goverment believe that there is some electoral advantage in attacking unions and in union bashing.
I refer first to the reason why the closed shop has persisted in many areas of British industry. As many impartial observers have noted, there is an inherent imbalance between the bargaining power of an individual worker and that of a large employer. Combination and union and collective bargaining offer a countervailing force that can redress the balance. For that reason, many workers seek 100 per cent. union membership, and it is legitimate for them to do so.
In some sectors of industry, such as printing, 100 per cent. union membership is traditional and can be traced back to the guilds. In other trades, craftsmen are reluctant to work alongside those not having the required qualifications, of which union membership is often the hallmark. The question of safety arises in industries such as mining, where men live and work closely together for long periods in dangerous conditions. They may be reluctant to go down in a cage with someone who is not a union member.
It has never been the ark of the covenant of Labour party policy that everyone must be coerced into union membership, whether or not they like it. Instead, Labour has historically recognised that the closed shop is a traditional element of industrial relations practice in many areas of employment. It has therefore adhered to the voluntary principle that the operation of a closed shop is a matter best left to management and workers—specially when one has been operated flexibly and tolerantly in the past, taking account of people having conscientious objections. The fact that the closed shop has lasted is proof that it meets the needs of both employers and employees.
That was graphically proved to be the case by the Industrial Relations Act 1971, introduced by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), which made closed shops null and void. I was not a Member of Parliament at that time but was still working in industry, as a member of a closed shop. I can assure the House that the 1971 legislation had absolutely no effect. During the Committee proceedings of the Employment Bill in 1980, the then Secretary of State for Employment, now Lord Prior, said, "The fact of the matter is, it did not work"—and I know of not one employer who used its closed shop provisions.
When the present Government came to office in 1979, they tried again. The Employment Act 1980 said that it would be unfair to dismiss anyone having a conscientious objection to union membership. It also required all new


closed shops to have the support of 80 per cent. of those balloted. The Employment Act 1982 stipulated that any dismissals would be unfair unless the closed shop had received the support of 85 per cent. of those balloted and eligible.
Almost every ballot was in favour of a closed shop, proving its popularity among those most closely concerned. The Employment Act 1988 made post-entry closed shops unenforceable. The former Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), will recall that it outlawed all dismissals even where a ballot had been in favour of the closed shop. The Government said that, even if there had been ballots, they did not intend to take any notice of them; immunity would be withdrawn from actions to establish or maintain a closed shop, whether pre-entry or post-entry.
What has been the effect of 10 years of the closed shop being outlawed by the present Government? The astonishing answer is, very little. In February and March 1989, the Department of Employment undertook a survey, which the former Secretary of State may have commissioned, whose results were published in the October 1989 issue of Employment Gazette. It revealed 1,300,000 workers in pre-entry closed shops and another 1,300,000 in post-entry closed shops. In other words, 2,600,000 workers remained in what are known to the Government as closed shops—that is, 10 per cent. of male workers, 3 per cent. of full-time women workers, and 1 per cent. of part-time women workers. The Employment Gazette article concluded:
More importantly perhaps, it has shown the closed shop to be more persistent and widespread than had previously been thought.
Passing a law making closed shops null and void does not prevent one from continuing with the agreement of all those concerned.
The closed shop was outlawed—otherwise the former Secretary of State and his colleagues would have been wasting their time for the past 10 years—yet it is still as strong as ever. One reason for that is that many employers support the closed shop because it spares them from splinter groups who would disrupt accepted representational arrangements. It spares them also from fragmented industrial relations and inter-union disputes. The simple truth is that the Tories' long offensive against the closed shop has failed in practice. The closed shop, which is rooted in certain industries, remains—and it has become ingrained because those concerned want it.

Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leighton: I must not take too long, but I will give way later if I have time, as the hon. Gentleman is a valuable member of the Select Committee on Employment.
Conservative Members consider that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has created a sensation and performed a volte face by conceding the workers' right not to belong to a union. That right, in fact, already exists, but it has not affected the 100 per cent. union membership in areas where such membership is traditional. The social charter—which, incidentally, would not give workers at GCHQ the right to join a trade union—has little to do with the position, which is due to a more

significant and fundamental development: the movement away from the idea of immunities towards that of positive rights.
Britain is the only industrialised country in the world with no constitutional right to strike, no right to join a trade union, no right to trade union recognition—and there is no point in joining a union if it is not recognised—no right to collective bargaining and no right to information and consultation. Instead of those simple, basic rights, we have an increasingly unsatisfactory system of immunities. Under our common law, all trade union activity represents an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade, but statutes have given us immunities in relation to action taken in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
Unfortunately, the definition of a trade dispute has become so hedged about and restricted that collective action is now virtually impossible. Any union trying to take such action will almost immediately find itself ensnared by the law. It would be far better to move away from all that, and to devise a clear, comprehensive set of positive rights to enfranchise workers so that their citizenship does not end when they enter the workplace. They should have the right to strike, which should mean the suspension of their contract of employment so that they cannot be sacked if they take strike action. That is the arrangement in virtually every other industrialised country.
The right to join a trade union also embraces the right not to do so, but that need cause us little concern. As we have seen, the right not to join has already existed for 10 years as a result of the Conservative party's efforts, and has had very little effect; we can live with it quite happily and easily. The right to join a union, however, will be of enormous value and will mark an enormous change. We must ensure that amendments are tabled providing such a right, or else exposing the one-sidedness of the Bill.
At present there is no protection against denial of access to employment on grounds of union membership; to gain such protection would constitute an enormous victory for unions and workers. It is very unlikely that anyone has suffered in the past 10 years because of not belonging to a trade union, and I should like the Minister to give us the name and address of anyone who has. We know, however, that thousands have suffered because of belonging to a union: D. C. Thomson in Dundee, along with many other firms, requires employees to sign a document stating that they are not union members.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has said, we want to deal with the pre-entry discrimination imposed by blacklists from such organisations as the Economic League, which often gives employers information that is biased and untrue. They tell employers not to employ certain people because they are union members, and that must be outlawed. I hope that victims of such pre-entry discrimination will be able to go to a tribunal and obtain heavy damages from such employers.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I noticed the Minister shaking his head when my hon. Friend said that people could be refused jobs on grounds of trade union activity. Have not two attempts been made in the House to make blacklisting unlawful, and did not the Government oppose both?

Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend has made a good point, and I pay tribute to her work in exposing such blacklists since she has been in the House.

Mr. Janman: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has explained, the lists produced by the Economic League catalogue people who are intent on causing disruption once they have gained employment. Why does the hon. Gentleman seem to believe that causing disruption and being a member of a trade union are automatically synonymous?

Mr. Leighton: They are certainly not synonymous. I do not know why Conservative Members are so shy of our looking into the matter to ensure even-handedness. My hon. Friends will table amendments in Committee for that purpose, and, if the Government are not prepared to grant that even-handedness, they will be pilloried and exposed.
Fewer and fewer industries employ a huge number of workers. As far as I know, only one factory in the Greater London area—the Ford motor company—employs 1,000 workers or more. More than 90 per cent. of firms employ 25 or fewer, often in office-based, high-tech services, and it is difficult for unions to exercise industrial muscle in such circumstances. It would be far better to enfranchise those workers with positive rights. That will extend their freedom and such a policy will be very popular, and will aid the unions. We must press our amendments to insert the necessary measures in the Bill, for—as will become clear—the Labour party stands for real rights for workers.
We have already warned that, if official action was made virtually impossible, the result could be an increase in the number of unofficial strikes. Now the Government are trying to legislate to prevent unofficial strikes; most organisations, however, have experienced no unofficial strikes for years. Such disputes are usually spontaneous and of short duration. They are often the result of a deeply felt grievance—over health and safety, for instance—and are generally resolved very quickly. If it were possible to legislate to prevent such action, it would have been done years ago.
The Bill lays down a convoluted, largely impracticable procedure instructing the unions to police and discipline their members. The Government are schizoid in this regard. Previous legislation took away a union's authority to enforce its rules after a strike ballot, but now the Government have performed a U-turn: they want unions to act authoritatively, as policemen. Clauses 6 and 7 are particularly disgraceful, mean, nasty and vicious, for they allow and encourage the targeting of individuals and the victimisation of prominent trade unionists. Lech Walesa, for instance, would be caught immediately by such legislation.
In 1978 Lord Dilhorne ruled that selective sackings amounted to unfair dismissal—and so they do. The Bill changes the law to enable employers to do precisely that. Instead of equity, equality and fair treatment, we see an intent to isolate and victimise prominent trade unionists. That is unfair: it discriminates between individuals, treating some as fish and some as fowl. Some will be singled out vindictively and punitively to have their livelihoods taken away.
An unscrupulous employer could—as Rupert Murdoch did—provoke and engineer a strike or other industrial action and then pick and choose whom to re-employ. That

would be a licence for victimisation, with no right of appeal. The word for that is tyranny. That is what is being proposed. The Government would make martyrs of them. They ought to remember the case of the Pentonville Five before they go down that route.
As for unofficial strikes, we all remember the episode that gave birth to the strikes on London Underground. Mr. Roger Straker, the personnel director of London Underground, was interviewed by Personnel Management in October 1989. According to Jane Pickard, who reported on what Mr. Straker said in his interesting interview:
It may sound as if he is indulging in jokey understatement when he confides that the recent tube strikes were triggered by a breakdown in communication, but he is, in fact, making a blunt admission of management failure.
The report continued:
He acknowledges that part of the problem both then and in the run-up to the dispute was a poor management structure.
According to the report, Mr. Straker said:
We were caught unawares—and I think the unions were caught unawares.
It was not that the unions were agitators, stirring up people; even the unions were caught unawares. He also said:
We knew there was some discontent, but had not appreciated the momentum. Looking back on it, the major weakness on the management side was lack of awareness of how strong the feeling was. But I think we have to look at how we avoid that happening again.
The reason for trouble on London Underground was bad management. There was also bad management on British Rail, which caused trouble. However, that was official. British Rail's personnel manager got the sack because of bad management.
It is wrong to move from the particular to the general and to legislate because of management failure in one case. To amend our law so as to allow the unscrupulous employer, anywhere, to victimise an individual worker would be shameful. The Labour party ought to oppose it with the utmost vigour.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am privileged to be the first on this side of the House to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). It was his first speech from the Back Benches in 16 years. That is a remarkable track record. It demonstrates my right hon. Friend's contribution to the work of the House, both in government and in opposition. My right hon. Friend continued the style that he set when he was on the Front Bench in the delicacy and sensitivity with which he congratulated my right hon. and learned Friend the new Secretary of State for Employment on introducing his incubus.
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the difference between the way in which this Government have dealt with employment legislation over the years, on a bit-by-bit basis rather than on the one big chunk basis, as happened in 1970–71. The mistakes that were made then have been well learnt. Consequently, we have a far sounder basis for dealing with industrial relations on a wide front. With my background in manufacturing industry, I welcome the changes and the stability that it has brought to a large sector of manufacturing industry.

Mr. David Clelland: What manufacturing industry?

Mr. Shepherd: Light engineering.
I am mindful of Mr. Speaker's strictures in asking for short speeches. I shall therefore deal with just one narrow but important point that I do not believe is covered by the Bill.
Early last summer, NALGO was in dispute with its employers. It chose to take action in the Hereford constituency in a rather curious way. A firm of large poultry producers, Sun Valley Poultry Limited, is in my constituency. It is obliged by law to employ on its premises poultry meat inspectors who are actually employed by the local authority. In this dispute, NALGO's local organisers decided that the best way to pursue their action was to withdraw the poultry meat inspectors' labour from Sun Valley Poultry Ltd. The firm was therefore unable to discharge its statutory obligations regarding poultry meat inspection. Its operations were subsequently put into jeopardy.
Not unnaturally, the firm took legal advice about obtaining an injunction to stop that action. The answer, I am afraid, was no. It was perfectly clear to me that there was a loophole in the law that enabled a curious, convoluted form of secondary action to be taken which was every bit as damaging as the secondary action that is referred to in the legislation and that has been dealt with by past legislation.
I took up the matter with Ministers in the Department of Employment and was pointed to the case of Barretts and Baird (Wholesale) Limited v. IPCS where the employers had succeeded in obtaining an injunction against NALGO officers who were the meat inspectors of the Meat and Livestock Commission. That, however, was on the basis of lightning strikes. In this instances, there was a long-distance strike. The advice was that there could have been a different judgment if there had been a long strike rather than lightning strikes.
When the matter was referred to counsel who was expert in employment matters he expressed a
clear view … that it did not make a difference and that cases subsequent to the Barretts case had made the position worse.
Counsel's clear advice to Sun Valley Poultry Ltd. Was
that there was nothing that could be done.
I asked that this point should be taken into account, but when I looked at the Bill I could find no mention of it. It may be that as I am not a lawyer I was unable to spot it in the phraseology of the Bill. I hope that when he winds up the debate my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell me whether that contingency is taken into account. If it is not, will he undertake to consider the matter between now and the time when amendments to clause 4 can be tabled? If appropriate, I hope that he will consider tabling a new clause to take that point into account.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State reiterated the assertion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield in his Green Paper of March 1989:
in general, there is no good reason why employers who are not a party to a dispute should be at risk of having industrial action organised against them.
It cannot be fair that a small group of employees of a different employer should be able to jeopardise the livelihood and activities of the biggest employer in my constituency. That cannot be correct. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to take this opportunity to legislate and not to allow this state of affairs to continue for a moment longer.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Employment Bill which, whilst it makes welcome provision to make unlawful the refusal of access to employment on grounds relating to trade union membership, nevertheless fails to make any provision for the improvement of good industrial relations, but rather through its proposed amendments to the law relating to strikes and other unofficial industrial action will only serve to embroil employers and employees in further confrontational legal dispute, to the detriment of industrial harmony.
Towards the end of his speech, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) set out a list of measures that he foresaw as developments in industrial relations in the 1990s. I would not quarrel for a moment with anything in that list. What troubles me about this Bill is that a major part of it remains a Bill for industrial relations in the 1980s. It contains an unnecessary measure of kicking the trade unions when they are already down and do not need any further kicking, and fails to take the opportunity of starting the 1990s with a Bill for the 1990s.
There can be only one justifiable reason for an Employment Bill—to enhance good industrial relations. If the Bill contained some of the measures outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, introduced changes that would encourage significantly employees' share ownership, included provisions for more effective works councils and aimed for increased partnership between workers at whatever level in the company from the shop floor to the board of directors to involve them in the activities of the company, it would almost certainly have our complete support. But unfortunately it fails to do that. It does not even address improving the administration of trade union procedure—for example, simply by ensuring that all strike ballot forms are sent to the homes of trade union members rather than there still being an option for ballots to be sent either to members' homes or to the workplace.
It is important that we accept the need for an effective trade union movement to protect the interests of trade unionists against oppressive, unfair and mean employers. We should aim for a trade union movement which is ever more effective in ensuring that services are provided which members need. In particular, it should provide a service when employees have been injured or if they feel that they have been unfairly dismissed. In that context, the Government and the Labour party—the Labour party was responsible for starting the iniquity—should agree that legal aid should now be extended to industrial tribunals so that workers at all levels can have proper remedies and effective representation available to them if they claim to have been unfairly dismissed.
During part of the Secretary of State's speech, I heard from behind and around me some dinosaur-like noises about the closed shop, The Labour party really has to recognise that the closed shop is part of its dinosaur attitude to trade unionism. By arguing for the maintenance of the closed shop, Labour Members are giving the trade unions dinosaur food, while the climate changes and kills the dinosaurs.
The trade unions do not need a closed shop to be effective. They have other advantages that sell their membership to those who might join them. Like right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House, I encourage people to join trade unions if there is any risk of their being


injured at work or unfairly treated by their employers. If they are in doubt and they ask me, I always say, "Join a trade union because it is a good thing to be a member of a union or a professional body which looks after your interests at all levels and at all times, and is prepared to negotiate for you." Trade unions do not need the closed shop. The closed shop is about as relevant today as compelling all adults to attend religious worship on Sunday whether they like it or not. It has no more logic than that.
We welcome the introduction into an Act of Parliament of a new right—the right to choose whether or not to be a member of a trade union. What troubles me as I listen to the reaction of Labour Back Benchers around me as I speak is that, whatever the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) says, he is hotly opposed on his own Back Benches, in his own party and in the trade unions that support some members of the Labour party. The Labour party has no well understood and genuine interest in improving trade union law. Its interest is in protecting trade unions, be they dinosaurs or not, at least as much as protecting the workers. I join the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield in saying that we should move into the 1990s and aim for trade union structures that really protect working people and ensure that they have as much incentive as managers for their workplaces to be profitable and safe.
I hope that I have made it reasonably clear that we support the abolition of the closed shop. I come to what in our view are severe flaws in the Bill—fatal flaws, at this stage at any rate. The Secretary of State should perhaps have declared an interest. I know that he has not practised at the Bar for some years, but he is a distinguished lawyer. He must know that the Bill could well become a minefield of contention and pedantry. Looking at clauses 4 to 8, I envisage lawyers specialising in labour law rubbing their hands in the Temple. I see the solicitors in Chancery lane who instruct them smiling with glee at the contentions that those clauses present. For example, clause 4 aims to tackle secondary action.
What will happen if the Ford Motor Company decides to split each plant into a separate plc and then split each part of each plant into a separate plc? Under the Bill as it stands, secondary action by workers in one plc to assist workers in another plc—although the group interest is clearly inseparable—will be unlawful. That makes no sense, except for the pockets of the lawyers who will go into court and earn fees for trying to sort out the mess that the Government have created for themselves. Therefore, I invite the Minister to consider the way in which legal artifice may be used to make primary action into secondary action. There is a real risk of that.
I now turn to clause 6. In my constituency there is a charming town called Machynlleth, which has a great tradition of railway workers. There used to be a large railway station, but, because of what is happening to British Rail services west of Shrewsbury, that railway station is about to become an art gallery, although I am sure that it will be an excellent art gallery. Perhaps I had better leave British Rail services out of the debate or I shall be ruled out of order. However, I am pleased to say that there are still railway workers in Machynlleth and most of them are still loyal members of the National Union of Railwaymen. Under clause 6, the unpaid, part-time branch

secretary of the Machynlleth branch of the NUR will be an official of the union, who will be able to make the NUR liable in court because of his actions.
I am a lawyer, too, and I recall the Solicitor-General, some years before he became Solicitor-General, appearing in a very well known case called Tesco v. Nattrass in the House of Lords, in which it was held that the only person who could bind a company was someone who could properly be regarded as the eyes and ears of that company. That remains the law for many purposes. Under clause 6, a union will be bound not by its eyes and ears but by people who are so far removed from its eyes and ears that they are barely part of its limbs.
That provision in clause 6 is part of a legal minefield that is unfair to trade unions, because, with the best will in the world, it will have one of two effects. Either it will introduce a new concept of vicarious liability—if it does, I am surprised that as good a lawyer as the Secretary of State is prepared to countenance it—or it will turn trade unions into centralised, authoritarian and unworkable organisations in which the part-time branch secretary at Machynlleth will have no interest. It is extremely important that that provision is reconsidered, because it is nonsense.
Clause 7 provides for an amendment of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and introduces new section 62A. It says:
An employee has no right to complain of unfair dismissal if at the time of dismissal he was taking part in an unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action … Provided that, a strike or other industrial action shall not be regarded as unofficial if none of those taking part in it are members of a trade union.
That, Mr. Deputy Speaker—perhaps as the changeover is taking place I should say Mr. and Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Call me Madam.

Mr. Carlile: Certainly, Madam.
That raises serious problems. Why is an unofficial strike not an unofficial strike when no trade unionists are involved? Why does it suddenly become an unlawful unofficial strike when but one trade unionist is involved? There can only be one reason for that—that the Government have decided that trade unionists should be discriminated against merely because they have decided to join a trade union. That is fundamentally wrong and contradicts the right in clause 1, which I applaud, to choose whether to be a member of a trade union.

Mr. Batiste: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: No, I will not. I have taken up enough time already.
Will the Minister reconsider that discrimination and remove it or justify it if he can?
New section 62A removes the right of an employee to complain to an industrial tribunal that he has been unfairly dismissed for taking part in an unofficial strike. We know what happens in the real world; sometimes unofficial strikes blow up for very good reasons. An employer may unjustifiably decide to lock out part of his work force or discriminate against women employees. The buzz goes round, "We will have an unofficial strike," and a young lad or lass of 17 walks out of the factory with the rest of the work force. Not only youngsters but all workers


are susceptible to group pressure. How can the Government justify penalising by possible sacking every worker, whatever their strength of character, age or sex, who takes part in unofficial action? To achieve just and even-handed trade union law, we must give all workers the right of access to a tribunal for it to decide whether their action was reasonable.
Our objection is that the middle and later parts of the Bill remove the possibility of reasonableness being the test of action taken by union officials or workers on the shop floor. The Bill sets rules intended to kick unions, rather than setting standards intended to support working people. We hope that it will be so improved in Committee that we shall be able to support it, but at present that is not possible.

Mr. Tim Janman: There have been five major employment and trade union Bills since 1979, four of which have been particularly relevant to industrial relations. Opposition Members made long speeches saying that each Bill would worsen the industrial relations environment and our economic performance, but we have experienced the exact opposite. We ignored those siren voices in the past, so my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should ignore the siren voices once again warning of grave pitfalls.
The purpose of the legislation introduced since 1979 was to make the trade union movement more accountable to, and therefore more reflective of, the views of its membership, and to put the freedom of the individual first rather than to allow the coercion of the closed shop—certainly the post-entry closed shop—to continue. It made the right to go to work a decision of individual conscience. Under the 1988 Act, we rightly outlawed the disciplining of trade union members because they wanted to go to work when there had been a majority ballot in favour of strike action.
The Bills introduced since 1979 have tried to restore the appalling imbalance that we inherited between the rights of the individual and the trade union movement and between the power and might of organised labour against capital. That policy has been extremely successful. Far fewer days are now lost because of strikes than throughout the 1970s, particularly when the Labour party was last in power. Even with the tightening of the labour market, and even with unemployment falling to about the level of the late 1970s, the number of days lost through strikes is smaller than in the 1970s.
The argument often advanced by Opposition Members—that that results not from our legislation but from the fact that we had high unemployment in the early 1980s—is irrelevant. With more people in employment than before, and with unemployment back to the level of the mid to late 1970s, fewer days are lost because of strikes than before the legislation was introduced between 1979 and 1989.
We have also witnessed substantial improvements in productivity—both in the economy as a whole and in manufacturing. One result of the legislation passed over the past 10 years has been that employers have had much greater respect for trade unions because—even if they have been forced into it, in one sense—trade unions have

become more responsive to, and have more closely reflected, the needs, aspirations and views of their members. Employers treat trade unions with more respect now that they know that the trade unions' views have more validity. Conversely, trade unions have, on the whole, more respect for employers.
Now that less energy is being dissipated by the trade union leadership in acts of industrial vandalism and destruction, many trade unions and their leadership have put their energy into more constructive matters, and have sought to try to make genuine improvements in the working conditions of their members. In a wider context, the EEPTU, for example has negotiated a very good private health package for its members. We now have responsible trade unions widening their horizons and expanding the role that they play on behalf of their members.
That is what we have achieved so far. We now need to consider why the Bill is a logical extension of those earlier Acts. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said that there were still 1·3 million people in pre-entry closed shops and a further 1·3 million people in post-entry closed shops. The hon. Gentleman was making a case for saying that we should not have waited for the Employment Act 1988 and this Bill to deal with the pre-entry closed shop: we should have dealt with it in our first Employment Act back in 1980.
Let me deal first with secondary action. It is logical to extend the removal of immunity in law to secondary action. In my view, it would be morally reprehensible to allow immunity to remain. Immunity should exist only for those directly involved in a dispute with their own employers, and within the definition of a trade dispute. The rhetoric of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East is all well and good, but he knows full well that the Bill will not prevent legitimate action by a group of workers who have a genuine dispute with their own employer and who have been balloted by their local union leaders concerning the kind of industrial action that they would like to take in the context of their terms and conditions of employment, and—where jobs are threatened, for example—provided that the wording on the ballot paper is specific and accurate in stating what the local shop stewards seek a mandate to do. If all those conditions are met and if there is a majority vote, that action can be taken and the right to strike remains.
Secondary action is an entirely different matter. It is completely wrong that a company in dispute with its own employees can have its goods and services blacked by employees of other companies who have nothing to do with the dispute, and that they and their customers should lose as a result. There is no moral case whatever for immunity to be retained in cases of secondary action. I therefore welcome clause 40, which would end such immunity.
Earlier legislation reduced the number of strike days lost, but still the public have to put up with a great deal of wildcat strike action, particularly in the public sector. Earlier in the debate we heard from the Opposition that the raison d'etre—the catalyst—for the Bill was the tube strike. I think that the tube strike was the last straw that broke the camel's back. It was the most recent horrendous example of action taken by unions in the public sector—as it often is—to disrupt the daily lives of millions of people without any democratic mandate from their membership to do so.
It is worth noting that 75 per cent. of strike action taken in Britain at the moment is unofficial. That means that this is not a small problem or a problem limited to one or two strikes—caused by bad management or whatever—or to one or two parts of the public sector. Even given the huge reduction in strike action over the past 10 years, such action remains all too prevalent.
It is fair to say that many options were discussed by the Government in seeking to solve the problem. One was the removal of the right to strike in essential services. I have always had grave doubts about a de facto removal of the right to strike from anyone in Britain, irrespective of whether they work in an essential service or not. The Government were absolutely right to conclude that they would be foolhardy to take that approach. They have decided upon the right solution. First, they propose to make trade unions far more accountable in law. The unions will have to try to ensure—and prove that they have been doing all that they can to ensure—that they can control the wider elements in their midst, and that people cannot stir up feelings and lead employees out on strike without going through the proper channels.
Secondly, the Government propose to change the law so that a person involved in wildcat action or negative, disruptive action within his company can be dismissed and will lose the right to take the case on appeal to an industrial tribunal. I congratulate the Minister on sticking with those two solutions and not taking a route that could have some significant public spending ramifications because of the inevitable tit-for-tat that would have resulted. I congratulate the Government for introducing the solutions suggested in the Bill.
Under all Governments, employers have been able to sack all or none of those on strike. That was the case when the Labour party was in power. I do not think that that fair balance should now apply to people taking or leading strike action when they have no legal, moral or democratic mandate for doing so.
The third provision on which I propose to comment applies to the pre-entry closed shop. As I said, much of the previous legislation has been about individual rights in the workplace and in society generally. The 1980, 1982 and 1988 Acts dealt with the post-entry closed shop and gave people the right to go to work without fear of discipline or of reprisals being taken against them simply because, as a matter of conscience, they happen to want to do one thing when the majority of their colleagues happen to want to do something else. But the pre-entry closed shop remained untouched, and it is therefore logical and desirable—as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has also concluded—to place it on the same legal footing as the post-entry closed shop. That is all that the Bill would do. There is nothing controversial or contentious about that. It is a natural and logical step forward.
Although the Labour party still opposes pre-strike ballots, supports secondary action and mass picketing and opposes trade unions being held financially responsible for the devastation that they often try to cause, it at least now seems to accept that strong unions are based on voluntary membership and not on coercion.
I hope that that conversion is genuine and does not simply stem from directives coming from Brussels. It seems at the moment that the Labour party embraces with both arms anything that comes out of Brussels. It is interesting to speculate whether, in the hypothetical event of there being a Labour Administration after the next general

election, they would warmly embrace a Brussels directive forcing them to allow private companies to run trains on a contract basis on the rail network. It would be interesting to see how the Labour party squirmed or reacted in response to directives from Europe which the Labour Government did not like for what they argued were perfectly valid philosophical and practical reasons.
At the moment, let us give the Opposition the benefit of the doubt. Let us assume that they have been suddenly converted and have jettisoned principles which they have held strongly for decades. If that is the case, when will we see the same conversion in respect of the students' closed shop and the National Union of Students?
I welcome the Bill. It is the next logical step and I am sure that it will be taken ably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State as he guides the Bill through the House.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) gave us the historical background to the Bill. I want to remind him, the House and the country of the historical background to the trade union movement.
At one time, we had the Combination Acts in this country, which denied workers the right to join or belong to a trade union. Many workers organised illegally in an attempt to get rid of the Combination Acts; as a result, they were hanged, imprisoned or transported abroad. Eventually the Combination Acts were destroyed. after a long and bitter struggle.
The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to big unions and big labour in contrast to the employers. That was reminiscent of the language used by employers in the United States immediately after the second world war. The unions in the United States were very weak until the new deal initiated by Roosevelt. He gave workers rights through legislation. We had not had rights like that in this country because we did not believe in legislation to organise trade unions. In the United States, workers in unions like the steel workers unions and the automobile workers unions began to organise and the Congress of Industrial Organisations was born.
The CIO can be considered alongside the old craft unions in this country, of which I was a member. We organised because we were craftsmen. Lawyers, who are also craftsmen, ensure that no one other than a lawyer enters that organisation. When I was an apprentice, the craftsmen—as in the United States—ensured that only craftsmen entered a union.
In the United States the employers eventually had to accept the CIO because there was tremendous organisation among industrial workers. I am only too pleased to provide the hon. Member for Thurrock with a lecture about the trade unions. He must be aware that after the second world war the employers in the United States referred to the workers' organisations as though they were stronger than the employers.
At one stage, the Conservatives did a similar thing in this country when they produced a pamphlet called "A giant strength". That was the beginning of the Conservatives' campaign against the trade unions. It contained the nonsensical argument that the workers had immense power even greater than that of the employers. That pamphlet was rubbish. Even with the best


organisation in the world, the working class and the trade unions were never as strong as the employers' organisations. The balance was always against the workers and trade unions and in favour of the employers. The hon. Member for Thurrock may not like that or agree with me, and that is his right.

Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heffer: No, I will give way in a moment.
The employers have always been stronger than the trade unions. However, the trade unions have always been under pressure, particularly from Conservative Governments. I remember the Industrial Relations Act 1971 under what I must call the Heath Government. I was a member of the Opposition Front Bench at the time, and I fought that legislation every inch of the way. There were arguments then about the closed shop, and the arguments continue today. As long as employers want to use their strength and power against organised working people who want decent working conditions and to live in decent conditions with decent wages, there will always be a struggle for 100 per cent. trade unionism and for the closed shop.
I am upset by the fact that Conservative Members believe that trade unionists want to oppress other workers. That has never been our intention. We have never wanted to place the iron heel on workers' necks because they would not join a trade union. In my time, I have negotiated many 100 per cent. trade union agreements, which people can call closed shops if they like—it does not matter. They were not always pre-entry closed shops, but sometimes they were.
In some cases, Jehovah's Witnesses or members of other religious groups did not want to join the union. Did we say, "Sack them"? Perhaps in some cases they were sacked, but those cases were very few. Trade unionists said, "Right—we are not in favour of sacking those workers, provided that they are not freeloaders going along and getting all the benefits of a trade union organisation. We will make an agreement and they can pay into a charity."
I am sickened by clause 1(b)(ii) which states that it will be unlawful
To make payments or suffer deductions in the event of his not being a member of a trade union.
That really makes me angry, because that means that everything that I have done over the years as a trade unionist, while accepting that people do not have to belong to a union, will be illegal.

Mr. Eggar: I have been listening extremely carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and in particular to his description of the closed shop as it was. Why has the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) decided that he does not want to oppose the abolition of the closed shop? Why did the hon. Member for Sedgefield not draw attention to the particular subsection to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has referred?

Mr. Heffer: I will come to the point about the social charter in my own terms, and not in the Minister's terms. I do not think that the difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and myself is quite as great as the Minister believes.

Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heffer: No. I shall make my case in my own terms and in my own way. There are differences—everybody knows about them—and I shall speak about them in a few moments. I shall not answer in terms of what the Conservative party thinks, because that is not what I think and it never has been.
Let me explain why we argue for a closed shop. I was an apprentice joiner before the second world war in the south of England. My trade union was not that strong, but, on going to work, my Dad said, "There are two things, lad, now that you've gone to work: take your tea caddy with you and join the union." That is what my old feller said, and he was absolutely right.
I joined the union as an apprentice. On some of the sites, the older trade union members would look round and realise that there was a majority of members of the society—that is what we called the union then—on those sites. They would elect a shop steward, and they would then talk to the other workers to try to get them into the union. On most occasions they succeeded. After that, the union would reach an agreement with the employer and it would tell the employer that, as from then, the site was a trade union one and that anyone working on it had to be a member of the union. Conservative Members may say that that is disgraceful, but what is disgraceful about workers working for the benefit of all workers? The union ensured that workers on the sites enjoyed proper trade union conditions and decent pay.
We never had one worker set against another. We were working for the benefit of all that was why we organised other sections of workers and got a federation steward on the job. The National Federation of Building Trade Operatives meant that trade union organisation on the sites was 100 per cent.

Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about workers not being set against one another. Does that mean some workers were allowed to disagree with the hon. Gentleman and other workers who shared his views?

Mr. Heller: I have always agreed with people disagreeing with me—whether in favour or not, that has happened. I am in favour of people disagreeing, as that is the essence of democracy. The day that such disagreement ends and we impose our view on other people is the end of democracy. We do not need to go into that argument, as most people know where I stand.
I believe that trade union organisation is the essence of democracy. We fought for the right to have the democratic organisation of trade unions. We were part of the Chartist movement. We were the ones who argued for the right to vote and the right to belong to a trade union. My fellow trade unionists and I represent the essence of the trade unionist movement and the essence of democracy.
The forefathers of Conservative Members fought against our rights, and they should not try to give us lessons about democracy. We do not need any lessons about that, because we understand it only too well. That is why some of us fought from the very beginning for the rights of Solidarity and of others in Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe. We did so because we believe in a democratic basis.
What is even more worrying than the provisions in the Bill relating to the closed shop are those relating to


unofficial strikes. I have never said this before publicly, but I believe that I have only been on official strike once in my life.

Mr. Ian McCartney: That was a mistake.

Mr. Heffer: Exactly—because it was an inter-union dispute. I was the steward at the time, and I was told by my executive to pull my workers out because we did not agree with a certain trade union. I said that that was daft, but the executive said that it was instructing me, so I told the lads to go out. There was also a dispute at the Cammell Laird shipyard called the "screwy" strike. I was about to be elected as a full-time official, but I opposed that strike, and my vote went down the drain. People said that I was standing up against their interests.
All the other disputes in which I have been involved related to important worker rights, and they were unofficial. Some of us in the trade union movement have had experience of officials who were almost Conservatives. They never wanted to do anything when it came to the working people. We had to tell them to do something, and we fought for the right of workers to take action.
Imagine working in a bad shop that was full of fumes. Imagine that one had negotiated with the employer for years about getting some machinery to get rid of those fumes so that one could work in decent conditions. I can imagine the day when a number of such workers would say, "That's the end. We have had enough and we're not working here any longer." By walking out of the gates, they are taking unofficial action. Those workers would not ask the executive of their union about it, as it would no doubt say that it was still negotiating. The workers would be right to say, "Never mind that: we're working there and we can't tolerate it any more."
If a shop steward is wrongly sacked, there will not be a great argument about it. The workers will merely say, "We voted for him and we will defend him." That is what happens. That is what unofficial strikes are about. It would be stupid to say that every unofficial strike is right, but workers must take such action sometimes.
Do Conservative Members think that workers like losing their wages? Do they think they like going home to their wives and saying, "I'm sorry, lovey. We're on strike. We'll get no wages at the end of the week and we won't get any dole money. We won't get any money from the union either"? That strike might last three or four weeks. Do Conservative Members think that their wives are understanding and say, "That's all right, love—carry on"? Not likely. I have received a lashing of the tongue sometimes because of unofficial strikes, and so has the average worker with two or three kids. They take such action because they cannot accept the conditions any more.
If the Bill is passed, it will be the equivalent of industrial slavery. It will force workers to do things that they would not normally do because they will be afraid of losing their jobs. They will lose the right to go to the tribunal—they will lose the right to do anything. That is the essence of the Bill. It is the worst piece of class legislation that we have ever had. We have had five nasty pieces of legislation, but this is the worst. They have all been bad, and I have opposed every one of them, as I will this Bill.
Hon. Members have a right to know where I stand about the position adopted by my Front Bench colleagues. I believe that they have been somewhat misled by the

European social charter. I do not want to be tied to that charter. I do not believe that any of us should be. I say, "When it is good, support it; when it is not so good, don't support it." That is my view. It is a simple, straightforward working-class view. I say, "If it benefits us, I am all in favour of it, but if it doesn't benefit us, don't support it." Conservative Members support little in the social charter because they think that most of it is in our favour. I think that all the bits that they do not like are worth while, and I am very much in favour of them.
The report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities dealing with the social charter, provides a synopsis at paragraph 8(v):
Freedom of association and collective bargaining. This involves the right to organise trade unions and to choose whether or not to join them
There is not too great a difference between myself and my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench about this. I am not denying for one moment that there is a difference, but we all agree that Conservative Members put their emphasis not on the right to organise, but on the right not to be in a union. The Bill gives the right to be an anti-trade unionist. The Bill gives rights to a whole bunch of people who will undermine the trade unions. That is where Conservative and Labour Members differ on this issue. I accept that we should have the right to organise into trade unions; they put the emphasis on the right to choose to do so or to choose not to do so.
I return to the point about the United States of America. I once won a scholarship to go to the United States of America to study the trade union movement, and that is what I did. It was interesting that, particularly in the southern states, there was legislation called "the right to work". In fact, it was anti-trade union legislation which stated that people did not have to belong to a trade union. In the states that had such legislation, workers' wages and conditions of employment were far worse than in the states that did not have such legislation. That is why I am not in favour of this aspect of the social charter.
I believe that my hon. Friends are misled on this issue and that they have got it slightly wrong. I am asking them to rethink this matter. However, I am delighted about one thing: we are all opposed to the Bill and shall vote against it on the Second Reading. I shall join my hon. Friends wholeheartedly in that.

Mr. David Madei: The speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton Mr. Heffer) followed a familiar pattern. I have heard him speak on industrial relations on many occasions. Sometimes he raised the temperature high, but sometimes it was much lower. The hon. Gentleman mentioned United Auto Workers of America and trade union practices there. I shall deal with that point a little later; it relates both to the Bill and to my constituency.
As has been said, the Bill follows its predecessors in employment legislation in trying to get as fair a balance as possible between management and trade unions. In many ways, it is a furtherance of the step-by-step approach. However, as has also been said, the European social charter is now elbowing its way onto the scene. British industry should be encouraged to note that the social charter clearly recognises that progress in industrial relations should always take account of national priorities and obligations, arising under national regulations.


Therefore, there is a clear recognition that we have a different history of trade unionism and industrial relations in this country compared with our European counterparts. The preamble and more detailed comments of the social charter on industrial relations take note of that.
There has been a considerable change in trade union attitudes during the past decade. However, since the Bill was published, there has also been a simple query by management, which takes the form of the question, "Do we really need any more changes in the law? Is it not our job to manage better?"
Clauses 1 and 2 can be described as the "helpful-access-to-employment" clauses. They are a firm demonstration of the Government's good intentions to make it as trouble free as possible for someone to find a job, be he or she a member of a trade union or not. We must look at that in relation to what is happening in the economy. The job vacancies position is starting to look shaky. High interest rates are still with us and at best we can expect a neutral Budget in March. I hope that, when the Bill is enacted, unemployment benefit offices will go out of their way to explain to people that there are new and welcome protections for individuals who are out of work and who need every encouragement and opportunity to find alternative employment.
The most contentious part of the Bill is that relating to unofficial strike action and to what can be done about it in employment law. The background has been the same throughout the past 10 years. Most strikes in this country are unofficial and do not last very long. However, even if they are of only a short duration, their effect can be considerable. Twenty-one years ago. Donovan recognised that, stating:
Unofficial strikes … will continue until the confusion which so often surrounds the exercise by management of its 'rights' has been resolved by the settlement of clear rules and procedures which are accepted as fair and reasonable by all concerned.
In other words, 21 years ago Donovan wanted a better understanding of what is expected of each employee when he or she is at work.
We must ask two questions about the proposals relating to unofficial action. First, will the democratic authority of elected trade union officials be strengthened? We have changed the law to ensure that such authority as trade union officials have must come through the ballot box and through democracy. Secondly, by writing to their members repudiating such action, will trade unions be effective in ensuring that the dispute is quickly solved?
The Bill goes into considerable detail on that point. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has already referred to clause 6, which sets out a new subsection (5A) in section 15 of the Employment Act 1982:
The notice given to members … must contain the following statement—
'Your union has repudiated any call for industrial action to which this notice relates and will give no support for such action. If you are dismissed while taking unofficial action, you will have no right to complain of unfair dismissal.'
In my view, that statement is far too blunt. We must include in the Bill a provision to ensure that the union refers to what it is doing to help to solve the dispute and whether it is seeking immediate outside help to resolve it and to get people back into normal working.
The clause deals with people who are members of trade unions. If we are to say that the union must send out that sort of letter to ensure that it cannot be had up for not taking sufficient action to stop the dispute, we should require the trade union to say more to its members, who may be taking unofficial action, about what the union is trying to do to get the dispute solved. I say that not least because if it is clearly stated in a letter that the union is bending over backwards to get the dispute solved, there is every possibility that the unofficial action will quickly end. In previous Employment Acts we have done all that we can to involve individual trade unionists in the conduct and affairs of their trade unions.
I now refer to two instances where there could be serious consequences if the wrong decision is taken on unofficial action. Privatised electricity is about to be launched. So far, the electricity industry has had a long history of extremely good industrial relations. Every effort has been made by the unions and the management of the industry to ensure that the employees are properly consulted and, above all, to ensure that, even if there are arguments between unions and management, the supply of electricity is uninterrupted. Already Mr. John Lyons, general secretary of the Engineers and Managers Association, has issued a warning. He hopes that when the new owners take over they will not exercise macho management techniques and introduce practices that have not hitherto existed in the electricity supply industry. Once these private companies are operating, they should take the greatest care before implementing this part of the Bill.
I want also to refer to the railway industry. Hon. Members have already mentioned unofficial strikes on tubes. The management have said that their consultative procedures were probably not right and that they may have been out of touch. We should all like rapid movement towards a single union in British Rail. Given the extent to which we shall depend on British Rail in the next 10 years, there should be enough confidence in security of employment for management and unions in that industry never to find that unofficial strikes have started due to a lack of understanding of what either management or trade unions have been trying to do to improve conditions in the industry.
Over the past 10 years, the Government have spent a great deal of public funds on management education. The latest figures available state that in 1987–88 more than £2·5 million was given in the form of recurrent grant to the London business school and £1·6 million to the Manchester business school. That is a good use of public money—to improve management education.
We should now be thinking about what we can do to extend management education to the shop floor. The purpose of management is to improve relations within a company and to make it more profitable and sensitive to markets, so there is surely a case for extending public funds to improving the education of those on the trade union side. After all, they are also in the business of making the company more profitable and sensitive to the market—and of ensuring that the general good of employees is continually enhanced. As we move into the new decade, we should think of ways of improving training opportunities for shop stewards, who play an important part in the running of their firms.
In the business section of The Daily Telegraph today, my hon. Friend the Minister of State refers to failures in business and pointed out that it is often lack of


managment expertise that causes businesses to go under. The lack of that expertise is also often the cause of industrial relations not being what they should be.
What can be done to promote a more constructive role for trade unions in the 1990s? What can be done to make them feel more a part of our improving industrial society? First, trade unions in certain industries should merge into single unions. The hon. Member for Walton mentioned the car industry. I dream of the day when a united autoworkers union exists in this country. We can debate ad nauseum what went wrong in Dundee, but one of Ford's problems was the unions there could not speak with a single voice.
By the middle of this decade there will be over-production in the car industry in Europe, and some plants will have to close. Let us ensure that plants in this country do not close. It is imperative that unions in the car industry merge into a single union; that will be better for their members and for the industry. If that proves impossible, I hope that they will at least speak with a single voice in the next decade and beyond. So often, upsets in the car industry have resulted from unions being unable to agree among themselves.
The unions' slogan used to be, "A fair day's pay for a fair day's work". It should now move on to be, "A generous day's pay for complete flexibility of working practices." If we are to ask that of the trade unions, we must ask something of employers, too. As it stands, the Bill could provide certain employers with an opportunity for doing rash and unwise things in industrial relations. That is why the Bill needs thorough scrutiny in Committee.
We have made great progress in industrial relations in the past 10 years. I only hope that this Bill is not a Bill too far. It is up to the Committee considering it to make sure that it is not.

Mr. David Clelland: This certainly is a Bill too far. What concerns me about industrial relations legislation under this Government is, first, that there has been far too much of it and, secondly, that it rarely has anything to do with the promotion of good industrial relations. This Bill is no exception to that rule. It purports to be concerned with economic efficiency and individual freedom, but, in fact, in common with all its predecessors of the past 10 years, it is entirely born out of the narrow prejudices of the Conservative party.
If Tory Members really cared about individual freedom, that care would have to extend to views that did not necessarily coincide with their own. But it does not. If it did, staff at GCHQ would be freed from the political strictures imposed on them by the Government. How will they fare under clause 1, in terms of the right to belong to a trade union? While it is a refreshing change to see such a right proposed in Tory legislation, we all know that it is a right not to belong which the Government will promote and encourage.
With certain exceptions, I could live with the inclusion of this section of the European charter in British law, provided that the rest of the provisions of the charter were included, along with the important right of union members to be represented by their union. There is no point in being a member of a union unless a person has the right to be represented by the union to the employer.
Provided that we successfully amend clause 1 in the way outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I do not believe that it will pose serious threats to union membership. After all, virtually outlawing the closed shop has had little, if any, effect. One hundred per cent. trade union membership shops still continue. The reason is that people know the value of union membership. If anyone working in a factory or shop did not know that value he would only have to read the Government's Green Paper, "Removing Barriers to Employment", which clearly showed that in closed shop employment, wages were anything between 10 and 30 per cent. higher than those elsewhere. So there is some value in a closed shop, and workers should realise that. When the Bill leaks out, closed shops will be springing up throughout the country.
More important, workers will recognise the value of trade unions when they get into trouble with their employers. Many hon. Members on both sides have had the experience of constituents coming to their advice surgeries with a problem connected with work. I will bet that Conservative Members ask the same first question as we do, "Are you a member of a trade union?" Nine times out of 10, the answer is no. They come to the surgery because they are not members. If they had been, we all know that they would not have needed to come, because the union would have resolved their problem.
I repeat the point made earlier: if membership or non-membership of a union is no longer to be relevant to the recruitment of labour, and if it is to be illegal for an employer to take into account membership or non-membership when selecting applicants for a job, the holding of information on people by anti-union organisations for the specific purpose of influencing their employment prospects should be not only irrelevant but no longer legal. I hope that the Government will be forced by their Bill to concede that point. If one result of the Bill is to put a stop to the sinister activities of the Economic League and the like, we will welcome it, although it will undoubtedly come as an unexpected, unintentioned and unwelcome surprise to Tory Members.
During the passage of the Employment Act 1988 we opposed the creation of a Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members, or CROTUM for short. That would be a rather unfortunate acronym if we ever got a senior commissioner for the rights of trade union members. We opposed the office on the grounds that it was unnecessary, provocative and expensive. As it turns out, we were right on all three counts.
The budget set for the functioning of that office was £1·5 million a year. The commissioner has taken up 31 cases, some of which were of doubtful validity.

Mrs. Mahon: Not very cost-effective.

Mr. Clelland: Exactly.
However, the commissioner has had to justify her existence and salary, as we predicted. The provisions in clause 8 demonstrate how badly she has failed even to manufacture enough work to justify her existence, to say nothing of her £1·5 million budget. To avoid an embarrassing admission of wasting public money, the Government decided to help her by extending her responsibilities and building her empire. We would welcome an extension of the responsibilities of the


commissioner if it allowed trade unionists to refer to her their complaints about their employer, not just their union but, again, that does not appear to suit Tory dogma.
The post was designed in the first place to harass trade unions by encouraging action against them. The further provisions in this Bill are clearly intended to encourage further mischief and harassment. No other organisation has the dubious distinction of having a special commissioner paid for by the taxpayer with the express purpose of supporting actions against it. Such is the extremity of the Government's prejudices.
By far the most objectionable aspect of the Bill is the intention, once again, to weaken the hand of the employee and to strengthen the hand of the employer. The proposals on secondary and unofficial action are reminiscent of the totalitarian eastern bloc Governments who are now on the wane, and display ignorance or carelessness or both on the part of the Tory party.
Unofficial action is usually a spontaneous event, inflamed by a sudden happening and of short duration. The Green Paper, "Unofficial Action and the Law", cites the case of a manager attacking an employee physically, which resulted in a walk-out by colleagues. The Green Paper then assumes that the fault lies with the employees, not the manager, whereas it was the manager's action which gave rise to the situation and the subsequent loss of production. Under the Bill, those workers are liable to be sacked lawfully by that same manager, with no right to redress for unfair dismissal. Where is the justice or even-handedness in that?
If that is not bad enough, the trade union to which the workers belong will be open to prosecution by the employer unless it repudiates the actions of its members, although it may believe that their action was justified in all the circumstances. Such one-sided, draconian measures have no part in modern industrial relations. They can lead only to inflammation of otherwise resoluble incidents. They will, as all perceived injustice does, cause anger and resentment, possibly leading to ugly confrontations and irreversible damage to industrial harmony.
The Green Paper makes much of the lost production caused by unofficial action. It states that an annual average of 3·6 million days are lost through all industrial action. No figures are given for unofficial action. I want to be generous to the Government's case, so I shall estimate that 2 million days are lost in that way. It is probably an exaggeration, but it helps their case. Are the Government seriously suggesting that those 2 million days lost pose such a massive threat to the economy? We have only to examine the statistics to find out.
At present, the work force is about 25 million people, which is equal to 125 million working days every five-day working week, or 5,750 million working days in a 46-working week year, if we are generous and assume six weeks' holiday. On those figures the number of working days lost in unofficial strikes amounts to less than one thirtieth of 1 per cent. of the total working days. That is what paragraph 1.2 of the Green Paper describes as a
substantial amount of unofficial action".
Paragraph 1.1 suggests that the elimination of that will make a
vital contribution to the improvement of our economy.
What rubbish.
If the Government are concerned about the effect of the number of working days lost on the economy, why do they not turn their attention to the 10 million days lost every year through accidents at work? Why not promote good working conditions and good working practices to reduce that figure which is more than 250 per cent. of the number of days lost through all industrial action? No, this Government have presided over a worsening situation in that regard. Indeed, they have even suggested that the imposition of further regulations could be a barrier to business or employment.
If the Government are motivated by damage to the economy caused by days lost from work, why do they not turn their attention to days lost through sickness, which total 300 million a year, which is nearly 100 times the number of days lost by all industrial action? Why do they not improve health screening and health education, invest more in our ailing Health Service or even pay the ambulance crews?
In short, if it is the health of the economy which motivates the Government to examine days lost from work, why do they ignore the major causes and attack the most insignificant in terms of numbers? The answer is that this has nothing to do with the economy. The complete elimination of all industrial action by chaining workers to their desks and benches would hardly register in terms of the totality of working days in this country. The elimination of strikes under such a system, however, would probably be used by Tory Members as evidence of good industrial relations.
This is about the use of Parliament, not to improve the welfare of people or to improve industrial relations, but to pursue unceasingly the political opponents of the Tory party until, as the Prime Minister put it, her main political opponents are "abolished" and Britain becomes a one party Government and she becomes the Ceausescu of Chequers and the dictator of Downing street.
While the call in East Germany, the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland is for the promotion of free, independent trade unions able to take both industrial and political action—the latter even applauded by the Prime Minister—in Britain, the state is busy shackling the unions and restricting the very freedoms so eagerly sought in the East. In tandem, while the cry in the East is for freedom of political action and expression, in Britain the Government are introducing legislation which creates politically restricted posts in public office so that people are denied political freedom if they are to keep their jobs. Solidarity trade unionists in Poland now have more freedom than trade unionists in Britain.
The Bill is further evidence of the totalitarian tendencies of the Government. It does nothing for freedom, industrial relations or the image of life in Britain in an increasingly free world. It should be decisively rejected by all those who cherish the freedoms for which our country fought so hard, and in the fight for which the trade union movement played such a principal part.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: This has been an extremely interesting debate. It has highlighted many of the serious and real differences in attitude between the Opposition and the Government on industrial relations. The most interesting speech, because it was the clearest


and represented most significantly the traditional Labour view of industrial relations, was that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I should like to rebut some of the elements in his speech.
One's attitude towards priorities in industrial relations and the industrial scene as a whole inevitably depends on one's experiences. The hon. Gentleman described his experiences as a shop steward in Liverpool. Equally, each of us must look at what formed our opinions. I had the good fortune to become involved in industrial relations law soon after I qualified as a solicitor which was when the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 came into force
For many years, I have been actively involved with Conservative Trade Unionists, and I am now its vice-president. Since coming to the House in 1983, I have served on the Committees of most industrial relations Bills. I hope to serve on the Committee of this Bill, so I shall leave detailed comments on its provisions until then. This evening I want to deal with the strategy behind the Bill.
Much of the debate thus far has been a recitation of history and how we have arrived at our current position. If we put back the timescale far enough, I would be in broad consent with many of the points made by Opposition Members. If there is no alternative to collective bargaining for someone on the shop floor to enforce his rights, obviously that is the right way forward. I do not think that anyone who has been faced with the cases described in times past would deny that as a basic proposition. The difference between my view and that expressed by many Opposition Members is that I believe that there have been dramatic movements forward in recent years. The Opposition's rhetoric always goes deep into distant history, to the communal memories spawned by the 1930s and before; they then carry those forward to present—day circumstances, even though the reality is quite different.
There has been a great sea change in industrial relations, which began not in 1979 but with the ill-fated Industrial Relations Act 1971. The one part of that Act which survived, and which has been of fundamental importance, was that relating to unfair dismissal. Anyone reviewing the industrial developments since 1945 must recognise that one of the great difficulties was that industrial action disrupted industrial production and that many of those industrial disputes related to dismissal. A consensus evolved during the late 1960s in favour of a statutory framework of law to deal with individual rights, and the relevant provision in the 1971 Act has stuck.
I do not think that many Opposition Members appreciate the extent to which the introduction of really important individual rights would fuel the appetite of workers on the shop floor for more rights, or the growing competition that it created between the exercise of those individual rights and the concept of collective action. The unfair dismissal provisions, once they had been assimilated, had one immediate and dramatic impact: whereas dismissals leading to strikes had been commonplace, they became a relative rarity. They have had an even more important and profound impact in that they have shaped the way in which companies have developed their procedures for management. I clearly remember many employers in the 1970s talking of unfair dismissal and echoing almost to the letter the words used tonight by Opposition Members about the role of the law in dealing

with strikes. They said that it was impossible to bring the law into industrial relations, that it would not work, that it would be too complex, that it would be a benefit match for lawyers and that no discernible benefits would flow for industrial relations.
I have always argued, and I see no reason to take a different view now, that unfair dismissal rights and the other individual rights that have followed have created an alternative to bringing out a work force on strike to protect an individual's position. It meant that companies, once they understood the regulations, could steer a route through what was previously an industrial relations minefield. The number of applications to industrial tribunals for unfair dismissal have fallen significantly, and the number of strikes caused by dismissal has completely fallen away. I accept that there was a time when the law was unclear, but once people addressed themselves to what the law required and to the route that they had to follow in disciplinary matters, the whole industrial relations scene improved significantly.
The provisions in this and in previous Bills relating to strikes, the circumstances in which they can take place and the manner in which they can be conducted will have precisely the same effect in signposting a route for industrial action that means that it does not happen at the drop of a hat but is considered action that carries a great deal more weight because it is clear that it has the support of the shop floor.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The issue of unfair dismissal was not first highlighted in the Conservative legislation of 1971. During the 1966–70 Parliament, I introduced two Bills under the ten-minute rule to set up tribunals to deal with unfair dismissal.

Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman should read Hansard tomorrow. I acknowledged that the development of unfair dismissal rights evolved from a consensus that was by no means confined to any one party. That probably explains why it was the one part of the 1971 Act that stuck and that had such a profound impact in the years to follow.

Mr. Mike Watson: rose—

Mr. Batiste: I shall give way, but there will be less time for other hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Watson: It is important that the record is set straight. The hon. Gentleman said that the number of unfair dismissal cases being taken to industrial tribunals had been significantly reduced. However, that is the result of the way that the legislation has changed. When the Conservative Government took office, claims could be made after six months. That was then lengthened to one year and then to two years. Fewer people now have the ability to make such claims, which is why the number has been significantly reduced.

Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman should study the figures, as I have done. The main reason why the number of claims for unfair dismissal has fallen is that, when the legislation was new, many employers did not know what was expected of them, many decisions to dismiss were taken arbitrarily and many were procedurally incorrect. With the development of experience of what was


permissible within the law, the incidence of successful findings for unfair dismissal has diminished because of the dramatically improved procedures throughout industry.
The development of the unfair dismissal legislation has signposted the way in which the rule of law within industrial relations can have a positive effect in showing routes that actually work, that minimise industrial disputes and that are of lasting industrial benefit. That will carry across, in exactly the same way, into clearer legal definitions of strike action and of the circumstances and the manner in which such strike action can take place.
Even more important than the immediate results of that change has been the way that it has encouraged a new approach to industrial relations and the rights of individuals on the shop floor. One of the growing disputes between the Opposition and the Government has been the way in which the interaction between individual rights and collective action should function, when many aspects of individual protection that hitherto had no redress in law are now met by the law. That is a considerable problem for the Labour party because, inherently, it is about collective action, whereas protection of individual rights is very much associated with the Conservative party.
It has been said several times during the debate that the Bill is a turning point in the step-by-step approach to industrial relations reform. I agree, but I hope that it is not an end to the programme. Most of the 1979 agenda that Conservative Trade Unionists presented to the Government has now been enacted. The closed shop will now end. However, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to recognise that there are closed shops that exist by law but that there are also closed shops that exist by intimidation by a number of employers.
I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to address the situation in respect of certain local authorities where every conceivable step is taken to force people into joining a trade union. Those closed shops are just as much a fact of life as are legal closed shops, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not lose sight of that fact.
It has been said that we have come to a turning point in the step-by-step approach. We must look to the future and recognise what has to be done to build upon the things that we have achieved. The step-by-step approach has been very successful in changing industrial relations attitudes. Indeed, it has changed the whole industrial relations environment. Our approach to legislation now is not just to look back at the 1979 agenda but to recognise that in 1990 things have changed. We have to look forward to the last decade of this century and the first decade of the next century and to reflect that approach in our attitudes to legislation on trade union reform and on industrial relations reform in general.
How can the individual rights that I have described grow and gain even greater strength in the context of trade unions? I believe that in two important respects we have to go further—going with the grain of individual rights. I hope in Committee to table amendments dealing with both points, so I will refer to them only very briefly tonight. First, there is the question of trade union mergers. I am not sure that I agree with the comments that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel). In the United Kingdom the current trend is

towards large general unions, to unions breaking away in cases of dispute, to considerable growth in non-TUC affiliated unions, and year by year to contraction of TUC-affiliated unions.
If the individual industrial rights that have been created are to grow and prosper, we must create a competitive framework within the trade union world in which they can operate. I agree with the many hon. Members who have said that, thus far, the need in the United Kingdom has been for the merger of unions. Even now there is a need for further mergers, but all the evidence from around the world of the tendency of organisations to move towards monopolies suggests that, if the process continues without check, we will move towards a relatively small number of very large general unions that are relatively remote from their members. I question whether that is a healthy or sensible way to proceed. The necessary corollary of individual rights is that there should be choice against which people may exercise their judgment and that unions should be responsible and responsive to what their individual members say.
At this stage, we ought to be considering whether some legislation comparable to the companies legislation on monopolies and mergers should be put in place. I make no recommendation as to what that should be. The use of the commissioner in this role may be the best way forward, but it would be better to look at this issue before the realities of the industrial relations world force it upon us. If people are to have real choice, they must be given real options.
That leads me to the second area which my right hon. Friend should consider. I refer to the anti-poaching provisions of the Bridlington agreement. I shall not take up the time of the House by quoting the regulations—

Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member addressing himself to the Bill? It seems to me that, in talking about the anti-poaching provisions of the Bridlington agreement, he is going into the question of some future Bill about which he is thinking.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill is very widely drawn, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is in order at the moment.

Mr. Batiste: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Clause 1 refers to the right of people either to join or not to join trade unions. The point that I am making is quite simply that that choice is inadequate; people must have the option also to join the union of their choice. It is in that respect that I propose to table amendments for consideration at Committee stage.
Let me refer to two examples that were widely quoted in the press last year. Airline cabin staff approached the British Airline Pilots Association with a view to joining because they disagreed with the attitude, philosophy and tendencies of the Transport and General Workers Union. The Bridlington agreement was invoked, and the cabin staff were barred by the Trades Union Congress from membership of BALPA, despite the fact that that union would have been quite happy to accept them.
A similar case that achieved widespread publicity related to shop workes—members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—who disagreed fundamentally with the position that their union had taken on


Sunday trading and wanted to join GMB. USDAW approached the TUC and blocked the transfer of its members to GMB.
If individual rights are to mean anything, it will be in circumstances in which individual members of a trade union in disagreement with their union over policy have the right to transfer to a union that more accurately reflects their hopes and aspirations. That is not an anti-union point. I believe profoundly that competition between unions for members is the most effective way of implementing change in a rapidly changing world.
As we have seen all too often, the difficulty about unions is their very slow response to change. We have seen this in relation to flexibility in working practices, and we have seen it in relation to single union agreements. Dundee has been mentioned many times today. The essential way of speeding up that process of change would be to give to individual members of unions rights similar to those that exist for consumers of services of any other kind.
The Bridlington principles would not be allowed to exist in respect of any other aspect of British industry, and I question whether they should be allowed to exist in the context of trade unions. However, I agree fully with the comment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that the necessary corollary is that demarcation dispute strikes must be made unlawful.
I have argued this evening for a way of enhancing the framework in which healthy competition for members is an engine for union change. That that change is needed is not in dispute. I believe that it is not disputed seriously even by members of the Opposition. Industrially, we are moving into an era of collaborative management because the successful companies will be the ones that handle their industrial relations well. Bad industrial relations will drive out incompetent companies—and quite properly so—but the corollary of collaborative management is skill and flexibility on the part of unions—skill and flexibility based upon the sure knowledge that they are carrying their members with them without coercion because those members agree with what their unions are doing and can see that it is individually to their interests to follow.
It is therefore with considerable pleasure that I welcome this Bill and the substantial completion of the 1979 agenda. However, I urge upon my right hon. Friend the necessary corollary, which is to look forward and see how we can build upon the successful foundations that have now been laid.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I see, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the tradition of the 1980s is being carried into the 1990s: when I am called to speak in the House, it is usually because you are in the Chair.
Other hon. Members on the Opposition side wish to speak, so I shall be brief. However, I reserve the right to deal in Committee with lots of matters that have been referred to today. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is not in his place, as I would have congratulated him on accepting voluntary redundancy from the Cabinet—though on more generous terms than are enjoyed by most people in industry.
The reality of this piece of legislation is not so much the Secretary of State's argument about tyranny and about freedom. Indeed, it is rich, in the first place, that it should come from the Minister who introduced the poll tax

legislation—one of the most tyrannical and unfair pieces of legislation in this century. His speech was all about the freedom of employers to take action against trade unionists and unions—not so much a step-by-step approach as a bit-by-bit attack on trade unionists and their organisations.
The Bill is really about undermining the ability of unions to secure excellent working conditions, proper training, the right to collective action, and the facility to work alongside union officials when taking official or unofficial action. The Bill is also aimed at prohibiting unions from operating in areas where trade unionism has hitherto not been strong.
As a result of Britain's employment pattern in the late 1980s and in the 1990s, unions are looking to non-traditional areas for their membership. The Government are attempting to prohibit the extension of trade unionism in that way. The Bill is not so much about closed shop arrangements as about the ability of management to manipulate trade unions, by crippling their ability to organise in the workplace.
In many debates over the past few years, the Government have often spoken of the principle of a level playing field. They used it in relation to private sector housing, the balance between public and private transport, deregulation of old people's homes—when they gave subsidies of about £1 billion to make it easier for people to open homes in the private sector—pensions provision, and even refuse collection. That principle of a level playing field has been introduced in every area except industrial relations, where it would give people the right to take action individually and collectively to protect themselves.
The Government abolished the fair wages clause, and they have an abysmal record of vocational training. The Government also abolished wages councils so that young, unskilled and disabled workers can easily be exploited. The only bodies capable of preventing that were the wages councils, but the Government chose to destroy them.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: No, I shall not do so—not least because the hon. Gentleman has not been present in the Chamber the whole evening. I prefer to allow other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to speak. On any other occasion I shall be happy to debate with the hon. Gentleman his unfair attitude towards trade unions and working people. We have heard it all before from him, and I do not intend to hear it all again this evening.
The Government have also restricted worker representation at tribunals. Whereas they introduced measures allowing employers to take trade unions to court, unions wishing to take employers to court are severely restricted by Government legislation. Under the present Government, 10 million working days have been lost through industrial injury, yet the resources of the Health and Safety Executive have been reduced time and again. At the same time, no legislation exists to protect workers against unfair dismissal.
The Government's training schemes are the biggest scandal of all. Young workers live in a twilight world of low wages, little or no training, exploitation, and virtually no health and safety provision. That is the Government's record of level playing fields in industrial relations.
As to responsibility for unofficial action, I shall give three examples of workers legitimately taking action to


protect themselves and other workers that would be the subject of crippling penalties under the Bill, were they to be repeated in future. Twelve months ago in my own constituency, two workers at a factory collapsed with heart attacks caused by zinc poisoning. Attempts by the work force to persuade management to bring in the Health and Safety Executive and the alkali inspectorate to take action about the conditions in the factory were rejected. The workers walked out for their own safety. Within 30 minutes of taking that action, they were sacked. Under the Bill, workers taking similar action will find themselves hauled up before a court by their unscrupulous employer.
So far this year, five workers have been killed on the Channel tunnel construction site. Despite efforts by the trade unions and the Health and Safety Executive, the employers have done little to improve safety. Under the Bill, Channel tunnel workers taking unofficial action will render their unions liable to unfair court penalties. On some sites it is necessary for workers to take action against sub-contractors for reasons of health and safety. Again, under the Bill, unions will be liable for any such action.
I refer also to the National Union of Seamen members working for P and O Ferries who took action after the bow door incident because of the company's appalling safety record, and who were summarily dismissed. They were fighting not for increased wages but for their safety and that of their passengers on the Channel routes. The Government will also make such action illegal.
A fortnight ago, the British Leyland Volvo manager jetted in to Manchester airport from Sweden and informed the work force that 400 of them would be down the road in 14 days. Later that day, union members took action in support of their right to negotiate their redundancy terms. I presume that under the Bill, those members individually and their union could be taken to court.
I refer also to sexual harassment at work by unscrupulous employers and—unfortunately, on occasions—by other employees. A female who walks off the job to escape sexual harassment and to prevent some pervert from continuing to molest her could be taken to court along with her trade union if the very employer guilty of molesting her decides to take that action. Such cases are not isolated. I know of a young girl who was molested by her employer. Her mother came to me because the girl was too frightened to report the matter to the police or the Training Agency. She was too frightened to speak out because that job was her only hope of employment. Any union taking unofficial action over sexual harassment of its members will also be liable to court action.
The Bill is a tacky piece of legislation and the latest in a long line of Government activities designed to undermine trade unionists and their unions. Intellectually, the Government find trade unionism incompatible with the type of society that they wish to create. They want to see in the 1990s a society in which young people are on training schemes or in low-paid work with no opportunity to organise themselves and to take collective action to improve their working conditions and health and safety at work.
When the Minister winds up, it will be useful if he replies to the telling points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about blacklisting and

the Economic League. If the Government are serious about individual and trade union rights, the Minister will give a promise that the Government will introduce amendments to the Bill to outlaw the activities of organisations such as the Economic League.
The Minister does not need to look far for evidence. Its blacklist includes myself and other right hon. and hon. Members. I was on the dole for three years because of that organisation's activities after I organised an attempt to secure trade union recognition. I could not find a job in the industry in which I had been working.
Organisations such as the Economic League are a blot on our democratic society and should be outlawed. I hope that the Minister will reassure the thousands of workers who are unfairly blacklisted and who may consequently lose their right to work, not just for a few days or weeks but for year after year because of such eastern European, Stasi-type organisations. Their days should be numbered, and the Minister can ensure that they are by amending the Bill in Committee.
There is much to be done in Committee, and if the Minister thinks that he will get off lightly, given the attitude of Conservative Back Benchers and Opposition Front Benchers, he has another think coming. We shall welcome the opportunity to use the Bill to test the Government's intentions in relation to individual trade unions rights, the European Community and the wider role of trade unionists throughout Britain. We shall table positive amendments to improve the Bill, and to test the Government: let us hope that the Minister is not found wanting.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) in his place. He is the storm trooper of the unions, and he and I have debated the issue once or twice in the past.
I apologise for having been absent for about an hour and a half this evening; I had a long-standing arrangement to participate in a debate on the Broadcasting Bill in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs. At one stage, members of the audience were asked to raise their hands if they worked in broadcasting—in other words, if they had a vested interest. A number raised their hands, and several of those then spoke in favour of their industry.
I could do the same here: I could ask Opposition Members to raise their hands if they were sponsored by a trade union. Some 50 per cent. of Labour Members are sponsored by unions, and it is therefore in their interests not to go against the arguments of those unions and not to allow their power to be diluted. I do not object to hon. Members having such vested interests; I make the point only to put into context Labour's opposition to any moves that the Government make on the trade union front.
As we know, it was the last Labour Government who effectively enshrined the closed shop within employment law, and it was the abuse of that legal entity by over-mighty and over-powerful trade unions that—more than anything else—encouraged my interest in politics. Then, as now, I regarded the closed shop as a gross infringement of individual rights, and I welcome the Bill as another of the extensions of basic human freedom that have been behind so many of the Government's actions over the past 11 years.
I also welcome the Labour party's apparent conversion to the belief that people should be free to make up their own minds whether or not to belong to a trade union. I believe, however, that that conversion is only skin deep, and that it owes more to electoral considerations than to a genuine change of opinion. Just as the Polish people would be wise not to trust the new, as yet unnamed, successor to the Communist party that was proclaimed over the weekend—because the new players in the new party will no doubt prove to be the old players in the old party, with the same Communist beliefs—so the British people would be wise not to take at face value the supposed conversion of Labour to the primacy of individual rights over collectivist trade union action.
At least a number of Opposition Members are honest enough not to go along with the sham propounded by their Front Benchers. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on making their beliefs entirely clear in an early-day motion. They believe that the closed shop should exist, and I have no doubt that the vast majority of Opposition Members feel the same: they help to remind us that a streak of authoritarian trade union collectivism is alive and well in the Labour party.
The House may be amused to learn about the Morning Star's approach to the issue. I understand that Opposition Members occasionally read that organ, and even make occasional contributions to it. On 11 October last year, the paper described
the three-pronged attack on workers' rights".
It continued:
The labour and trade union movement has to take up the challenge. The further attempt to screw down working people must be resisted all the way.
It is interesting to contrast that with what the paper had said on 3 October, under the headline, "Soviet MPs legalise right to strike":
Soviet MPs passed a law yesterday legalising the right to strike except in key industries including power and rail.
It is the first time in Soviet legislation",
the Morning Star blandly reported,
that the right to strike has been enshrined.
The exceptions—which include also civil aviation, city transport, communications, defence and law and order bodies—were clearly regarded by practically all deputies as necessary in the present grave economic situation…According to the new law, it will be up to the courts to decide whether a strike is legal or not after it has been declared.
What on earth would be the reaction of the Morning Star if the British Government had, for instance, declared all transport or telecommunications strikes illegal? That is a clear demonstration of the hypocrisy of the political Left in this country.
One wonders whether anything has really changed, and whether the Labour party is really no longer in the pockets of the trade unions. Labour would end the sequestration of trade union funds, thereby making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for courts to collect fines imposed on trade unions. It seems that Labour is still prepared to allow secondary picketing, and perhaps—who knows?—mass secondary picketing at that. We must remember that the party is financed largely by unions, and therefore cannot really afford not to do what it is told by them. I found the performance of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) extremely unconvincing, and I do not believe that he or his colleagues have experienced a conversion at all.
I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to his new role; I hope,

however, that he will forgive me if I contradict his reported comment on his appointment, that this was likely to be the last Employment Bill. A number of significant improvements remain to be made to employment law. The Bill would not, in fact, make the closed shop illegal, although it would make it unenforceable.
My local council, Kirklees metropolitan district council, currently has a union membership agreement—that is, a closed shop—with five trade unions. Nothing in the Bill would force Kirklees to tear up that agreement. While I would not expect it to try to enforce the agreement—I say that rather optimistically, but none the less in good faith—it would still be there for the trade unions to use when trying to persuade, cajole or mislead non-union employees to join the union. In such circumstances, many people tend to join just for a quiet life, and are not prepared to go to a tribunal, as the Bill would require.

Mr. McCartney: Give an example.

Mr. Riddick: I can give the hon. Gentleman an example. Constituents have approached me about the problem and have asked for my help and support. I was able to point out that Kirklees council is unable legally to enforce a closed shop agreement.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman another example of people acquiescing in such circumstances. That is what happened after NALGO's strike last year.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that Kirklees Labour council members became involved with the unions above the heads of their employers to ensure that the union closed shop agreement was introduced ahead of Government legislation. Those poor workers were forced into unions, although the vast majority of them did not want to be union members.

Mr. Riddick: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows a good deal about Kirklees council. He lived in Huddersfield. When Labour party members hammered out the agreement with the trade unions, they did not bother, even once, to talk to individual trade unionists and ask them whether it was what they wanted. They talked to the trade union leaders but not to the individual members.
After last year's strike, individual NALGO shop stewards cajoled and threatened a significant number of NALGO members who did not strike in an effort to persuade them to leave the union. That directly contravened section 3 of the Employment Act 1988. A number of such cases have gone to industrial tribunals. Compensation has been awarded against NALGO. However, the majority of people, when so requested, have acquiesced.
People find it difficult to put their heads above the parapet and take their case to a tribunal. They have never appeared before a tribunal. Even if they have a cast-iron case, they are reluctant to take it to a tribunal. They opt for a quiet life. We may have to tighten the closed shop legislation so that unscrupulous employers—in particular, some Labour-controlled local authorities and intimidatory trade unions—cannot exploit the loopholes that will certainly exist, even after the Bill becomes law.
Those who feel that they have suffered discrimination at the hands of a closed shop employer should have the right to ask the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members to provide advice and assistance. I draw to the attention of the House a letter that I received today from


some people who are very concerned about the provision that employers should not discriminate against individual people because of union membership. Mr. Pollard and Mr. Bruce say in their letter:
Our lives centre around the Lords' Supper and the Scriptures which contain many references to Masters having direct relationships with their employees…a nd the need to be separate from other associations…Consequently we do not employ members of trade unions or professional associations, likewise we do not join employers associations, nor do we negotiate with these bodies…we would appeal for provision to be made so that we might be able to continue with a clear conscience in this way. If the Government were hesitant about providing a general conscience clause, perhaps a provision at tribunal stage could be considered".
A few of my hon. Friends intervened during the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He said that he would consider the point. It certainly deserves to be considered.
One abuse is not tackled by the Bill, which I understand is still fairly widely practised. Union members in a number of industries, notably the docks, demand to see a lorry driver's union card before he is allowed to unload his cargo. I have received a number of complaints from the managers and employees of transport companies. They have complained bitterly that they have to belong to a union, usually the Transport and General Workers Union, if they are to obtain contracts as hauliers. I am not sure whether such a practice is covered by the existing employment law. If it is, the law needs to be strengthened and more clearly defined, since this gross abuse of trade union power continues.
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has an important part to play in industrial disputes, but its terms of reference have not changed since the Employment Protection Act 1975. That Act placed a duty on ACAS
of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining.
That means the encouragement of trade union membership. The role of ACAS should be wholly neutral. The reference to encouraging the extension of collective bargaining should be struck out.
The 1990s will see markets both in this country and worldwide becoming more open and competitive. It is vital, therefore, that all sectors of British industry should operate at maximum efficiency and with the minimum of restrictive practices. The public sector should no longer be sheltered, as it still is, by over-powerful unions and managers without the tools to tackle the problems. Britain's rigid labour market is characterised by central bargaining and traditional systems of pay negotiations that do not properly reward individual performance. That stifles new methods of working and attempts to improve productivity. The dispute in the ambulance service, together with last year's dispute on London Underground and on London buses and British Rail, are classic examples.
Changes to the way in which these organisations are run will come about as a direct result of policy decisions and management implementation, but it is likely that such changes will not be brought about unless more liberalising reforms in the employment law are introduced in the years to come.
The Bill is another important step in this Government's brilliantly successful step-by-step approach to reforming the industrial relations law. The changes have been brought about in the face of relentless and often venomous

opposition by the Labour party. The reforms have played a highly significant role in Britain's economic and industrial regeneration during the last 11 years. I fear that they will not be the last reforms that will be necessary if we are to be fully competitive with our industrial competitors. However, I am delighted to add my strong support for this Bill to that of my colleagues.

Dr. Kim Howells: I am not a supporter of mandatory closed shops and I am not a sponsored Member of Parliament. However, I come from a community which has always had a high trade union membership because its members believe in the principles of trade unionism. Compunction to join a trade union is always a poor second to the desire to belong to a trade union because of what it stands for.
I am deeply concerned about and unhappy with certain clauses, especially clauses 6 and 7, which extend the liability of union members in tort of certain actions. Trade unions have a constructive role to play in society and they have played that role even in the most fractious of industries. Certainly in the past decade there has been no more fractious industry than the coal industry. Yet in my experience the management in the coal industry, like that in many other industries, prefers to deal with the representatives of a disciplined and organised work force than with a work force that displays anarchy and is willing to take action wherever and whenever it feels like it.
Trade unions, from their national executives to individual shop stewards, frequently play a most constructive role in the production process. Unions are and always have been part of the disciplinary machinery of large sections of British industry. I am sure that some Conservative Members understand that role—I wish that more of them did. They will also understand that even the most disciplined trade unionist may find himself or herself carried along by the sheer force of events, whether inspired by a perceived injustice or by any one of a thousand combinations of circumstances. Clauses 6 and 7 seek to discover and punish scapegoats in those cases.
The Minister knows that the right to strike is an individual and not a collective one. He knows that trade unions give the individual right to strike practical application. Trade unions were forced to allow combinations of individuals—free-born men and women—to band together to help redress the imbalance that dominated industrial relations.
For most of this century, legislation by Governments of all political shades has recognised the role of those in trade unions who are chosen by their fellows to act as spokespersons and local organisers—a task which is frequently difficult and thankless and requires more than a little personal courage as well as ability. One of the most astute and courageous trade union leaders this century was the late Will Paynter, whose analyses of industrial relations in the late 1960s led him to be criticised as frequently by the so-called Left as by the self-proclaimed Right. He once told me in the midst of the most bitter and damaging post-war strikes in Britain that, while it can take some courage and ability to order men and women out on strike, it takes infinitely more courage to order them back to work when it looks as though the tactical worth of a strike has become exhausted or redundant.
Clauses 6 and 7 threaten to take away even the fragile protection of existing legislation from men and women who are local trade union officials. The clauses threaten to undermine one of the central pillars of responsible and valuable trade unionism. No one in his or her right mind will put himself forward for a trade union position if, as a result of unofficial industrial action which he may have opposed in the first place, he finds himself at the wrong end of the law.
There may be those in the Government who rejoice at such a prospect, but I fear that theirs will prove an extremely limited prospective, for they will be undermining a central pillar of that often fragile platform on which industrial harmony is based. Ironically, I suspect that any sense of triumphalism which may be evident among the Government will be shared only by the nutters who occasionally surface in the trade union movement claiming that all strikes are good strikes. All strikes are not good strikes, but it makes no sense to use scattergun legislation to control irresponsibility. It will injure and destroy precisely those elements in the trade union movement that bring to the movement a sense of discipline and industrial perspective which all industries and services desire.
Instead of encouraging and enhancing the spirit of democracy and responsibility, the clauses will promote demagogy and anarchy—qualities which have a nasty habit of surfacing within work forces in which a sense of order has been replaced by disillusionment and helplessness. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider again the likely long-term implications of the clauses becoming law.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am saddened when I listen to Labour Members dealing with industrial and employment matters. I well remember the days of strife when the Labour Government experienced great difficulty in the governance of the land because of problems with unofficial action and discord in industry. That was harmful not only to the Government and the people but to trade union members, who were often used as the tools of extremists. I well remember as a young industrial engineer that often young people who were brought out on strike by extremists were unsure why they were on strike and returned to work after about a week disillusioned about why their leadership had called the strike. I have always welcomed the sensible step-by-step approach of the Government in bringing industrial relations into the 1990s.
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)—as one of his constituents I had the great honour of voting for him when he was first elected to this place—congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. I recall serving on the Committee which considered the Employment Bill of 1988. Many Conservative Members told my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that the closed shop legislation would not be sufficient to deal with the problem.
I cannot understand any hon. Member saying that people should not be allowed to follow their calling because they do not have a trade union card. It is difficult to get into the acting profession or to work in the docks

without trade union sponsorship. No Labour Member, bearing in mind the fairness of treatment of individuals, could disagree with that.

Mrs.Mahon: rose—

Mr. Bruce: I shall continue my speech. I am showing the hon. Lady the courtesy that she always shows me when I try to intervene in her speeches—I am ignoring her.
The closed shop works against the rights of the individual. I was pleased to see the chink in the armour of Labour employment spokesmen when we were debating the social charter. They were willing to embrace not only the right of everyone to belong to the trade union of their choice—as an employer, I have always believed that people should have such a choice—but their right not to be a member of a trade union.
I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will state the Labour party's policy more clearly than the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who hedged on the issue. People join a trade union for the extra benefits that membership offers and because it will fight for them. However, one must have the right to say, "I do not want the union to fight on my behalf," or, "I do not like the way that it is doing it." Such a right should be supported by all hon. Members.
Clause 2, which deals with employment agencies, is interesting. I must admit that until I had read the Bill I had not realised that the Government were aware of the abuses that occur. Having spoken to my right hon. and hon. Friends, I still am not sure whether they fully understand those abuses. I ran an employment agency in Yorkshire, and I was extremely surprised to discover that one company—I shall not mention its name as my information may be two or three years out of date and it may have changed its methods—gave trade union membership forms to all those who filled in an application for temporary work. Applicants were clearly told that they could not be taken on by that company unless they became a member of a trade union.
Perhaps that in itself was not so worrying, but there is another side to the story. I was asked by one company to set up an employment agency dealing with drivers. We were told that we would have the co-operation of the trade union involved, the Transport and General Workers Union, as long as we signed up not only every driver we sent to the company as a member of the TGWU—admittedly, that was not too difficult, because most of the drivers wanted to be members—but all our staff.
Even that would not have been so harmful, were it not for the fact that the members whom we were signing up and from whom we were taking subscriptions were not getting any rights in exchange. Negotiations took place between the temporary driver controller and the trade union; there was no real negotiation between drivers and the management of the company. Once the trade union got the money—to my mind, protection money—Bos-Recruitment could send the drivers without harassment from the rest of the trade union.
I submit that that was a harmful way for a trade union to use its rights. By all means let the union ask for rights to organise my temporary drivers if it was prepared to give those drivers their negotiating rights, but it was not interested in that. It was interested only in the money that it could take from our company in return for giving us an


Okay—the assurance that it would not cause us any problems provided that we signed up all our people. Clause 2 is an interesting and long overdue clause.
Clauses 4 to 7 will help to prevent unofficial industrial action. People tend to say that the Bill is an employer's charter and helps only employers. But often it is the ordinary trade unionist whose life is ruined—the person on a low income who lives from one pay cheque to the next. He is the person likely to suffer most. Often companies involved in a dispute cannot help such workers. They find that some form of secondary action is taking place and they cannot get rid of it. Although the changes in this respect are marginal, they are to be welcomed. The provision that introduced a tribunal to look after trade union members' rights was also a fairly marginal proposal, but, clearly, if even one individual is not being supported by his trade union and needs to take action against it, we ought to support that person.
Clause 12 is interesting, and I am surprised that the Government have not gone further with it. I hope that they will consider the matter carefully in Committee. To my mind, work experience represents an important way of showing schoolchildren what they are likely to encounter when they leave school. The technical and vocational education initiative has allowed schoolchildren to see what the working environment looks like. I see no reason why we should not have work experience for children from the age of five onwards. If there is any stop in law to allowing schools to set up work experience schemes appropriate to children's needs, it should be removed. To say that children may undertake work experience only from the last term of the first year of their GCSE course is to limit their opportunities to benefit from it.
Two of my children are engaged in GCSE courses, one in the first year and the other in the second year. I am aware of the difficulties that face schools with the requirement to fit in all the aspects of the national curriculum and also find time for work experience. Properly supervised work experience at the behest of the school should be available to children at an early age, and I believe that the school and the governors are best able to judge those matters. Many children leave school at 16 or 18 years of age without experiencing a week of real work.
The Bill is good and it follows on from other Conservative employment legislation which has primarily looked after the interests of workers. By doing that, Conservative employment legislation has been good for them and has ensured that there is peace for the employers and for the trade unions. Earnings and productivity have risen as a result of industrial peace. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. John Evans: I want at the outset to declare that I am a skilled member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. I am proud also to be a member of section 1 of the AEU and a sponsored Member of it. I am proud of that for a variety of reasons, but the main one is that it is the most democratic organisation in Great Britain. It sticks in one's gullet to be lectured on democracy by Conservative Members when the Conservative party does not have an ounce of democracy in its ranks.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said that the Labour party is dependent upon finances from the trade union movement. It will be a wonderful day when the Conservative party publishes its accounts so that the world can see where its finances come from. It will also be a wonderful day when members of the Conservative party vote to elect their party chairman, who is at present elected on the block vote of the Prime Minister.
Because of the constraints on time, I, like my colleagues, will concentrate on clauses 6 and 7 which relate to unofficial action. I was a convenor and shop steward for most of my working life in the ship repair yards on Tyneside. We operated a pre-entry closed shop, but no problems arose from it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I found that most of the disputes in which I was involved were unofficial. The employers regularly sought to change the terms and conditions, wages and health and safety arrangements of employees. Our only recourse in response to the employers' action was to walk out of the yards.
Clauses 6 and 7 are based on the Green Paper entitled "Unofficial Action and The Law". The clauses are based on prejudice, anecdotal evidence and, in some cases, sheer invention. Paragraphs 1.4 to 1.9 in the Green Paper seek to paint a horrific picture of Britain in turmoil as a result of unofficial strikes. The Green Paper refers to the coal industry, the motor manufacturing industry, the docks, shipbuilding, construction, the North sea oil platforms, British Rail, London Underground and the Post Office.The suggestion is that turmoil existed in those industries.
Paragraph 1.6 states:
A broad categorisation of the stoppages covered by the Employment Department's industrial disputes statistics shows that three-quarters of those which could be classified were official.
I tried to discover the truth and I tabled several written questions to the Department of Employment, to which I received answers in December. I asked how many unofficial strikes took place in each industry over a five year period to 1989 and how long those disputes lasted. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment replied:
The information is not available except at disproportionate cost."—[Official Report, 21 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 449.]
I tabled another couple of questions, and asked to be told
how many unofficial strikes took place in Great Britain in 1989…the total number of days lost through unofficial strikes in Great Britain in 1989; and what were the comparable figures for the five previous years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State replied:
Separate statistics on unofficial strikes ceased to be published as a regular series in 1981."—[Official Report, 12 January 1990; Vol. 164, c. 786.]
In other words, the Department has no hard evidence about the extent of unofficial strikes in Great Britain.
If the Bill is implemented, it will be the most draconian legislation ever put on the statute book. It will simply amount to a denial of the right to strike in any circumstances.
Why is unofficial action taken in the first place? Some 95 per cent. of unofficial action is caused by employers who arbitrarily change the terms and conditions of employment, arbitrarily withdraw bonus payments, arbitrarily alter health and safety conditions or sack employees arbitrarily. The overwhelming majority of such strikes are settled within two or three working days and they are unknown to the respective union. Frequently, the first that


the union hears about such an unofficial strike is when the district officer is rung up by the employer, who asks him to get the lads and lasses back to work. They frequently return to work on the understanding that the status quo will be reintroduced.
The Green Paper has said that unofficial strikes take place because the proper procedures are not followed. Frequently it is the employer who has not proceeded with the official disputes procedure. What do the Government propose to do in those circumstances? They seek to clobber not the employer but the employee who is seeking to defend himself and his terms and conditions.
If the Bill goes through, clause 7 will be worse than anything that now applies in eastern Europe. The Bill will be condemned by the International Labour Organisation because it contravenes its statutes, but it will almost certainly be condemned by eastern European countries as they move towards greater democratisation.
An employee who is sacked for taking unofficial action will have no right to go before an industrial tribunal. The Bill goes further, however, as the trade union or the work force will be denied the right to take any action to protect that sacked employee. A number of my hon. Friends have already said that that is tantamount to slavery.
If an employer physically or verbally abuses one of his work force, that person and the rest of the work force might respond by walking out. If one of those workers is a shop steward, the employer could demand that the trade union should refuse to acknowledge that action. That power effectively denies workers the right to take such action, because, should they do so, the employer may take his employees to court. A worker who lost his job through the actions of his employer will have no right of recourse to an industrial tribunal, and his union will have no right to take action on his behalf. The union will have no right to protect that worker or his colleagues. Many of my hon. Friends have already said that, as a result of the Bill, our workers will have fewer rights than the workers in any other EEC country. Our work force will be entirely exposed to the actions of the employers.

Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend has talked about fairness and about how workers are treated. Two of my constituents have just lost a case for unfair dismissal on the basis that they were casual employees. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would give them the dubious rights that he has just outlined? Does he further agree that such workers will be treated unfairly, having extra duties imposed on them on the one hand, while on the other hand they will not be able to go to an industrial tribunal and to win?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The workers to whom she has referred will have no rights whatsoever.
We shall pursue every element of the Bill in Committee. We shall test the Government's integrity, because we intend to seek to table many amendments to ensure once and for all that the Government will be seen by everyone to be an anti-trade union Government.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The debate has been like many of our previous debates on trade unions. Many of my hon. Friends' speeches have been based on their experience, whereas all that we have heard from

Conservative Members has been the usual massaging of prejudices and the lunatic fringe—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but we know full well that the Government were running short of Members willing to speak this evening. Indeed, those who spoke in the debate were, even by the Government's standards, those who urge the Secretary of State to go just that little bit further.
We also know that the Bill has almost no role in terms of the industrial relations framework of Britain in the 1990s. Ironically, the former Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) virtually said as much. Having been the author of the Bill—I shall explain a little later why he was the author—he then sought to explain why he had handed to his right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State perhaps not a poisoned chalice but a slightly leaky chalice, which has little merit in terms of the realities.
Tonight the former Secretary of State began to address some of the issues that he so signally failed to address when he was in government. I welcome him to the Back Benches because perhaps we can now begin to have the kind of meaningful debate with him that was not possible over the Dispatch Box. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to serve on the Committee, Opposition Members will certainly give him a great and sincere welcome.
The Bill owes its existence to two factors. The first is the fact that the Prime Minister, ever spiteful, was faced with a massive deficit in the opinion polls and said to herself and to the former Secretary of State for Employment, "I'm in a hole, Secretary of State, can we not knock the unions once again? We have tried it before in the past 10 years. Can we rattle the same old skeleton once again?" The second factor was the summer of discontent and the belief that political gains could be made from the Government's promises to reform industrial relations, which had begun to come unstuck at the seams last year.
It is interesting that even a magazine such as The Economist has advised the Government:
The government's achievement to date has probably captured most of the gains available through the courts.
I must emphasise that I do not agree with that first sentence, which relates to industrial relations. The article then states:
Going further could be to sail close to the invisible line where the loss of individual freedom outweighs the good for the economy and society.
I charge the Government on that latter point. Under the Bill, the individual freedoms of our citizens will be so undermined that the Bill cannot be regarded simply as an extension of the previous legislation. In its own right, it is a particularly obnoxious, nasty and vindictive piece of legislation which will do real damage.
It was only when my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made it quite clear where Labour stood on this piece of legislation that the Government realised that they could not possibly justify being seen to penalise people at their place of work simply because they were members of a trade union. At that point, the Government were bounced into trying to bring in some form of equity. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that achievement. We have already won the first argument in the battle on the Bill.

Sir Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that what he has just said is wholly untrue?

Mr. Lloyd: In that case the right hon. Gentleman must tell the House why this was not in the Green Paper and why it was only after my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield had made his announcement that the then Secretary of State leapt to his feet, metaphorically speaking, to tell the world—he even advertised it in the Employment Gazette—that the Government were falling into line with the social charter.

Sir Norman Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman reads my intervention on the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) he will see that the hon. Gentleman put himself on the hook of abolishing the closed shop. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) has said something totally untrue. The House wants to know whether the Opposition are saying that they are opposed to the closed shop and will remain so.

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that we are saying that we shall live in conformity with the social charter—the Government are not prepared to do that. They are not prepared, for example, to live with a regime that guarantees people rights at work because they are trade unionists. The Secretary of State was repeatedly challenged in the debate to say whether he would take action against blacklists; he declined to do so. He knows that the ILO has condemned the Government for their unfair practices perpetrated on GCHQ.

Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that allegation? The ILO has not condemned the Government. Indeed, the latest complaint that the TUC put to it has been withdrawn by the TUC. Does he not know that?

Mr. Lloyd: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads the ILO's "Observation 1989" he will see that the organisation roundly condemns the Government's action on GCHQ, and on secondary action. I have no doubt that the ILO will also condemn this Bill, especially its provisions on secondary industrial action.
The Bill is even-handed neither on the right to be a trade unionist nor in its treatment of employer and employee. I remind the Secretary of State that one of his predecessors, Lord Prior, made it clear that he thought it necessary to leave in the law what he described as a gateway to legality. If the freedom to strike was not to be rendered illusory, he said, trade union members should have the right to take strike action. Tonight, the Government are trying to close that gateway.
I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's speech and I hope that the Minister of State will tell us what has changed. We have heard no justification—[Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State want to intervene? I thought I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman mutter a defence. I shall educate him a little in industrial relations law.
The Bill is not necessary to achieve what the Secretary of State claimed it would achieve. The Government's previous legislation has already clarified the legality or otherwise of these provisions. This legislation is a fraud if the Minister claims that it has been brought in for these reasons.
The nastiest part of the Bill concerns unofficial action, and we are entitled to ask why it was introduced. My hon. Friends have already pointed out that the Government referred in several ways to the great problem of unofficial action. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North

(Mr. Evans) has just told us that the Government's claims were bogus. The Green Paper suggested that unofficial action was a uniquely British practice, but neither the Secretary of State, nor his predecessor, nor the Minister of State will tell the House why unofficial action in this country is a different proposition: it is because we have a completely different legal framework. The German legal framework encourages official action, but in this country the legal framework increasingly makes official action more and more difficult. The Government were warned of that. If anything, the surprise is that unofficial action is not more widespread.
The Government may claim that clause 1 gives an individual the right to be a trade union member. What will happen to a trade unionist, perhaps the only one at a place of work, when unofficial action takes place and he is sacked? Will he have any rights under clause 1 to maintain his place as an employee there? The Minister looks puzzled. I hope that he will address that question because we will return to it until we receive an adequate answer.
In the Green Paper the Government argue:
The unofficial strike action earlier this year by steel erectors on construction sites in London was not only damaging in itself; it also threatened to undermine the industrial agreement in the engineering construction industry.
Presumably that is the view of Ministers. I talked to the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which organises steel erectors, about the dispute. The union made it clear to me that on each and every occasion it had done exactly what the Government seek to provide in the Bill: the union made it clear to its members that the action was unofficial and not approved of by the union. Its members were under no illusions. The Government prayed in aid that dispute, but what difference will clause 6 make to such a dispute? The answer is none.
During the dispute on London Underground earlier this year, the management said:
The management made more mistakes when the first unofficial one-day strikes began in April. Tunnicliffe announced there would be no attempt to punish the ringleaders because he did not want to create martyrs.
Most sensible employers will recognise that the creation of martyrs is ridiculous, but that is far from a universal view.
Mr. Brian Ward Lilley, director of the Institute of Personnel Management, warned the Government that some employers might misuse the legislation. He said:
I hate to say this, but there are some managers who could use this as a way of avoiding redundancies: by provoking a strike, dismissing some people then hiring back the ones they wanted, thus getting rid of the few too many.
I challenge the Minister to tell us how the Bill will prevent such action by unscrupulous employers.
I have already challenged the Secretary of State once on this next matter, but I do not think that he understood. I hope that he will reply this time. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) raised the important issue of health and safety. Under German legislation, for example, it is not necessary to take unofficial action when equipment is defective or unsafe, because regulations protect employees and allow them not to work until it has been inspected and declared safe or declared unsafe and corrected. In Britain there is no parallel right.
I hope that Ministers understand that: if employees stopped working because equipment was unsafe, it would count as unofficial action. Under the Bill employers are likely to say to the instigators of such unofficial strike, "I


am sacking the troublemakers who brought their colleagues out on strike." Those workers would have no right of appeal.
The Under-Secretary of State was challenged late last year during the construction safety campaign about the rights of employees working on unsafe construction sites. His advice was clear. He told construction workers that they had the right to walk off the job. He incited them to take unofficial action, and I applaud his decision. I challenge the Minister to say whether my interpretation is correct. If I am not correct, I shall withdraw my charge. However, if I am correct I expect the Minister to say that he will accept amendments that will take away that nasty, vindictive and spiteful part of the Bill that will do so much damage not only to individuals at their place of work but to the whole concept of health and safety in our society.
The Bill is not simply a step beyond what has gone before. It has a number of nasty features that will damage industrial relations. Above all, it has nasty features that, in the final analysis, may kill people at the workplace.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): It has been an enjoyable and interesting debate, not least because of the separate debate on the Opposition Benches, not only between Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members, but between Back Bencher and Back Bencher. The speeches of the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) represented different attitudes to the whole question of industrial relations legislation. That added to the interest of the debate.
I much enjoyed listening once again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will not take it amiss if I say that it was a pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend's dulcet tones. However, the highlight of the debate was the vintage voice of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). During a fascinating perambulation of a speech, he announced that he had been on official strike only once, and that any other industrial action, as a union official, was on the basis of something that we are now making illegal. I was not entirely sure whether he was recommending or opposing the Bill. But it was an interesting comment.
The Bill is our latest stage in our reform of industrial relations legislation. It places the last nail in the coffin of the tyrannical closed shop practices that were actively promoted by the last Labour Government. It is a further reinforcement of the rights of the individual. The Bill will remove legal protection from all forms of secondary action, and so will protect jobs. It will bring unofficial action within the scope of the law, and so improve the climate of industrial relations.
No one seriously doubts that, finally, there is a wide consensus to end the closed shop. As recently as 1984, Tony Dubbins, the general secretary of the National Graphical Association, said:
To us a closed shop is as natural as getting up in the morning and having breakfast.
The reality is much less homely. In fact, the closed shop is a euphamism for a blatant and outrageous denial of individual rights. It is wholly indefensible in a free society.
The Government have reduced the scope of the closed shop, through successive pieces of legislation. We have
already made the post-entry closed shop unenforceable,

and now is the time to deny the closed shop any legal status. The Bill's provisions on the closed shop are entirely even-handed. Clause 1 makes it unlawful to deny someone a job because he is not a member of a trade union, and it represents a major step forward for civil liberties.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) adduced two reasons for his concern about clause 1. First, he said that it had a conclusive presumption. The fact is that conclusive presumptions can be made only in two particular sets of circumstances—they do not apply right across the board. Both sets of circumstances apply to the position of an employer. I must say that I welcome the hon. Gentleman's concern for the position of an employer. In both sets of circumstances, the remedy is in the employer's own hands.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield considered the sanctions in these two instances to be extreme—I think "extreme" is the word that he used. I do not deny for a moment that they are severe. They need to be severe, because we must bring an end to the most blatant and most extreme of the closed shop practices. That subsection refers to blatantly discriminatory advertisements and to union-controlled recruitment, such as that at Smithfield market. I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that. If he is genuinely opposed to the closed shop, why is he not opposed to strong action being taken in those two sets of circumstances?
Then the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) referred to the problem—they saw it as a problem—of the Economic League. The hon. Gentlemen know full well that the Economic League does not submit candidates for employment and that employers do not agree to employ only persons that the Economic League puts forward. The Economic League simply supplies information to employers on request from them. If, acting on that information, an employer were to turn an applicant down because of his union membership, the Bill would catch that employer.
The claim that the Bill is not even-handed because it has no effect on the activities of the Economic League is therefore simply nonsense, and unsustainable. The hon. Gentleman's expression of concern about those two provisions is nothing more than a cop-out. He wants to find an excuse for not supporting clauses 1 to 3, despite the fact that he claims to support abolition of the closed shop.

Mr. Blair: Let me repeat something that I said earlier: if the two points that I have made are so small and so feeble, let the Minister deal with them and we will support the provision. Now, will he deal with them?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has simply not understood the provisions of the Bill, and has misconstrued the relevant clauses. I very much look forward to debating this matter with him in Committee. Undoubtedly I shall be able to explain to him in considerable detail why he is wrong.
The Bill will close the last remaining loopholes that might permit secondary action. Of course, we know from the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Eggar: I am talking about the hon. Member's leader, so he ought to pay attention.
We know from the Leader of the Opposition that he believes that secondary picketing is "a right that should be enjoyed". The hon. Member for Sedgefield, and the Leader of the Opposition, should recall that there was precious little to enjoy in the 1970s, when secondary picketing prevented food deliveries, blocked hospital treatment, and left the dead unburied. Those were the effects of secondary picketing.
There was precious little for the people of Dundee to enjoy when they lost 1,000 jobs and £40 million of investment because of threats from the Transport and General Workers' Union. The Labour party has never condemned the threat by Mr. Ron Todd. I am sure that it was an oversight on the part of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, who, of course, is sponsored by the TGWU, that he should fail to condemn that union for the disgraceful action that prevented jobs and investment from going to Dundee.

Mr. Heffer: I return to my point concerning the Economic League and similar agencies. The Minister says that they supply names only if requested to do so by employers. If an employer decides not to appoint an applicant, giving a reason other than his trade union activities, but if that is the real reason for his non-appointment, how will the applicant ever know? Such agencies will stop people being employed, and that is not something that the Bill or any other measure can deal with.

Mr. Eggar: I know that the hon. Member for Walton is totally opposed to the position of his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, and I understand his concerns about the Bill's provisions. The hon. Member for Walton opposes not only those subsections that worry the hon. Member for Sedgefield but clauses 1 to 3 overall, because he is in favour of keeping closed shops.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Blair: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Eggar.

Mr. Eggar: The third main plank of the Bill is the provision that brings unofficial strike action within the scope of the law. All too often, unofficial and unballoted industrial action causes damage and disruption to British employers. The Bill removes the anomaly whereby a union is protected by statutory immunities when a shop steward organises unofficial action even if no ballot has been held.
The Bill will make unions responsible for industrial action caused by any of its officials down to and including shop stewards. No longer will union leaders be able to give tacit encouragement to unofficial strikes caused by any of their officials. The unions will be required to repudiate unofficial action effectively and speedily if they wish to retain their legal immunities. They will retain the option to ballot for an official and legally protected strike. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) that the Bill's provisions do not in any way prevent a union from adding words to the notice of official repudiation, provided that those words do not undermine the effect of the repudiation.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Eggar: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have only a little time left and I must move on. He will have plenty of opportunity to make his points in Committee.
Employers will be permitted selectively to dismiss anyone taking official action, and that will be an important and necessary deterrent—as the CBI has recognised.
The Bill will mark a further major advance for industrial relations. The hon. Member for Sedgefield, with no little effrontery, suggested that the Bill shows that the Government are seeking to refight the battles of the past, but the opposite is true. The Bill is designed to ensure that this country never revisits the industrial battlefields of the 1960s and 1970s. Still less do we want to revisit the trade unionism and attitudes of the 1930s so well described by the hon. Member for Walton. It is clear that it is the Labour party that is stuck in a time warp, for it wants to take us straight back to the rampant trade union power, widespread strikes and industrial chaos of the late 1970s.
When the hon. Member for Sedgefield reads his speech tomorrow morning, he should feel a little embarrassed, because it was all about making it easier to strike and to bring about the industrial disruption that has caused this country so much harm. The hon. Gentleman's message was clear. His message from Labour's Front Bench was, strike long and strike often. He was propounding a strikers' charter. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to deny that, why did he not take up the challenge laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State? Why has he not clearly denied the statement made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—who has been conspicuous by his absence—who said that Labour would repeal all the Government's employment laws?
The reason for the hon. Gentleman's silence is clear: he will not deny his hon. Friend's proposition, because he knows that what his hon. Friend says represents the true voice of the Labour party. If he does not believe me, let him look behind him at all the stern faces of the 35 hon. Members who signed the early-day motion in favour of the closed shop. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is clearly right: Labour would get rid of all the Government's employment legislation—it would "get rid of the lot".
I sat patiently through the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, but he did not deny that Labour would repeal every last one of the union reforms of the past 10 years. Let me give him another opportunity. Will he now deny that the Labour party will repeal our legislation? Clearly he has not sorted out his little internal differences with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
The fact is that Labour never condemns any strike, however much damage it does to the public. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Howells) had the courage to recognise that not all strikes are good strikes; I wish that the hon. Member for Sedgefield would show the same courage. Whatever a strike may put at risk—the rail network, export orders, energy supplies or even the Health Service—the Labour party will always endorse it, encourage it and wish it effective success.
There has been one exception during the past 10 years: Labour's leaders have condemned one strike. You may be as surprised as I am by that information, Mr. Speaker, and I see Labour Front Benchers furrowing their brows, wondering what on earth that strike could be. They did condemn a strike, however; they even—let me whisper it


—supported a management that threatened to suspend striking staff without pay. Who was that ruthless employer? Yes, it was the Labour party at Walworth road, which engaged in a bitter dispute with its own staff from the National Union of Journalists only last August. According to the Labour party, only one employer in Britain should be allowed protection against industrial action: itself. That is the only occasion in the past 10 years when Labour Front Benchers have condemned a strike: what an appalling record.
I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Sedgefield: he has sat through the debate with little company on the Opposition Front Bench. Where were his shadow Cabinet colleagues? 1 think that we have a right to know—or at least the hon. Gentleman has a right to know—which of those colleagues told Tribune that his policy was a "gross mistake" and "totally unnecessary". For the hon. Gentleman's sake, will the author of those remarks stand up and be counted? Was it the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East? Was it the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who seems reluctant to relinquish his old habits and responsibilities? Was it the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who looks thoroughly puzzled? Was it perhaps the Leader of the Opposition himself? Answer comes there none: no one is prepared to own up.
According to the terms of its policy review, the Labour party has ducked the challenge and faked the change. The Opposition oppose the Bill because they do not want union leaders to be responsible for their members. To Labour, a trade union ballot is either an administrative inconvenience or a means of compelling employers to concede to union demands. To us the ballot is an essential democratic right to protect members against abuses of union power.
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order (Amendment on Second or Third Reading:

The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 198.

Division No. 53]
[10 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Amess, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amos, Alan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Ashby, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Aspinwall, Jack
Burns, Simon


Atkins, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butler, Chris


Baldry, Tony
Butterfill, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cartwright, John


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Benyon, W.
Chapman, Sydney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chope, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Churchill, Mr


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Peter
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Conway, Derek


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)





Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Robert B (Herb W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N' thfield)


Critchley, Julian
Kirkhope, Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Devlin, Tim
Knox, David


Dicks, Terry
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Den
Lee, John (Pendle)


Durant, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lilley, Peter


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fishburn, John Dudley
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fookes, Dame Janet
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Franks, Cecil
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Fry, Peter
Maples, John


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gardiner, George
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mates, Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Andrew (GedIbig)


Gow, Ian
Montgomery, Sir Fergus,


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Gregory, Conal
Neale, Gerrard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Neubert, Michael


Grist, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hague, William
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Page, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Paice, James


Hanley, Jeremy
Patnick, Irvine


Hannam, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')
Pawsey, James


Harris, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Haselhurst, Alan
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hawkins, Christopher
Riddick, Graham


Hayes, Jerry
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hayward, Robert
Rost, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Richard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarh')


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shersby, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Sims, Roger


Irvine, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jack, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Janman, Tim
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Steen, Anthony






Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stevens, Lewis
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Watts, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, Sir John


Summerson, Hugo
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)



Tracey, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trippier, David
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Walden. George





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Crowther, Stan


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cryer, Bob


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Margaret
Doran, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Douglas, Dick


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alexander


Blair, Tony
Eastham, Ken


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boateng, Paul
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Fearn, Ronald


Bradley, Keith
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gordon, Mildred


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gould, Bryan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Graham, Thomas


Clay, Bob
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Haynes, Frank


Corbett, Robin
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heller, Eric S.


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Doug





Hinchliffe, David
Nellist, Dave


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
O'Brien, William


Home Robertson, John
O'Neill, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Patchett, Terry


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pendry, Tom


Hoyle, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Illsley, Eric
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Richardson, Jo


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Charles
Rooker, Jeff


Lamond, James
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Leighton, Ron
Ruddock, Joan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Livingstone, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Short, Clare


Loyden, Eddie
Sillars, Jim


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


McLeish, Henry
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Straw, Jack


Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Turner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walley, Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wareing, Robert N.


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow. C)


Martlew, Eric
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Meale, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Worthington, Tony


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wray, Jimmy


Morgan, Rhodri
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morley, Elliot



Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Murphy. Paul
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 ( Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Employment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Durant.]

Orders of the Day — Milk

Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Welfare Food Amendment Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 3), dated 3rd January 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th January, be annulled.
By these regulations the Government have achieved a rare feat. Few measures have aroused with equal passion the wrath of both the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Farmers Union. This is a mean malicious measure that has been universally condemned, and the whole milk business speaks on it with one voice—producers' milk producers, milk processors, creameries, milkmen, milk women and milk drinkers. I am sure that, if the cows themselves could join in, they would, bellowing a chorus of derision and denunciation.
More than 120 Members of the House signed an early-day motion, which condemned this inept and damaging decision to short-change the milk industry. It states:
this House condemns the decision to reduce the redemption value of welfare milk tokens; is convinced that this autocratic cut will put in jeopardy a beneficial nutritional service to handicapped children, vulnerable nursing and pregnant mothers and their children; believes that it unfairly slashes the precarious income of milkmen and the milk industry.
The decision is based on the Government's failure to appreciate the value of the work of milkmen in collecting and redeeming the tokens.
My normal practice is magnanimously to refer at first to any beneficial effects of legislation, but this time that is not possible because the regulations are damaging in every syllable, and every assumption that they make is wrong. They are friendless regulations, which can be justified only if one believes that the only function of Government is to reduce public spending, regardless of the social havoc that will be caused.
To understand the thinking behind the regulations is not easy. I would ask my hon. Friends to try to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to get down to the primitive protozoan level of thinking at which the Government's corporate brain functions. It is not the brain of homo sapiens—of reasonable humankind; it is the regressive, crude, tunnel-thinking brain of homo Thatcherus. So single-minded has the Government's pursuit of price-cutting and penny-pinching become that they now bargain and cheat with the guile of a stallholder in the souk in Baghdad and with the morality of an Arthur Daley. The Government have decided that there is virtue to be gained by getting good value for money. That is a laudable aim and one that we would all applaud. Big-spending Governments need to be circumspect, especially when they are buying Trident missiles, battle tanks, and jet aircraft. Of course these should come cheaper by the dozen. However, the crude assumption is that all bulk buying must be rewarded with a discount.
The Government certainly buy milk in bulk—£80 million worth. Therefore, they quite illogically deduce that there must be economies of scale. Of course, there would be economies if the milk was sold in bulk by tankers going round to the delivery points. However, that is meaningless in this case because welfare milk is delivered in pints very expensively and slowly on individual doorsteps. Not one drop of it is bulk delivered. There are no economies of scale and no price advantages from bulk purchase.
The regulations will cause a serious financial loss. The Associated Co-operative Creameries knows of some milkmen who deliver 200 welfare pints of milk a week. Under the regulations, that would represent a loss of £42 a week, or £2,184 a year. That could be a mortal blow for a small business.
The Department of Social Security and the Department of Health claim that they are being scrupulously fair and claim that the grief of the cut in milkmen's incomes could be shared with other sectors of the industry through a process of horse trading. In that case, the milkmen would be negotiating from a position of weakness.
The Government will save the not inconsiderable sum of £10 million, but that is a small sum in terms of DSS and Department of Health spending. At whose expense will that saving occur? The milkmen will suffer directly this week, out of their own pockets.
A milkman from the Gaer in my constituency has written to me asking,
Why should I foot the bill for a welfare benefit? Why should I take a cut in my income in order to provide a service that the Government should provide? This is on top of the taxes that I pay already. What will happen next? Will the Government ask bus drivers to chip in to pay for free trips for pensioners? Will they ask nurses for a whip round to pay for operations?
The NFU, a friend of the Conservative party, states:
This is an unjustifiable attempt to force the dairy industry to pay for a national welfare scheme that is primarily in the interests of the nation.
The milk industry suffers from low profit margins. If it cannot absorb the cuts, the loss must be repaid by the customers and the price of milk will rise. That is a familiar story of the Government cutting their costs by shifting the burden on to the milk buyers—the taxpayers.
All hon. Members will be aware that it is impossible these days to have a conversation with small business people without their bringing up their great anxiety that their businesses will no longer shortly be viable because of high interest rates and inflation. Last year there was a record number of small business failures. For many milkmen, this theft of a small part of their legitimate income may be the final straw that wrecks their business.
One of the Government's false claims that has greatly angered the trade is that they have negotiated with the industry on this matter. Negotiation is understood to be a process of bargaining and give and take at the end of which a consensus and agreement is struck. That is not what has happened in this case. The Government have obviously been reading the book entitled, "How to Strike a Bargain" by the late unlamented Nicolae Ceausescu. It is not a consensus so much as a Caeusensus. It is an autocratic act.
The managing director of Associated Dairies in Leeds confirms that there was no agreement. He wrote angrily:
As recently as January 10th representatives of the dairy trade met with the Minister reponsible to advise her that the changes had been constructed on false assumptions. They were met with a simple refusal to reconsider the decision.
"Change has been imposed", state the master dairymen of London. The Dairy Trade Federation, which represents all first-hand buyers of milk from the Milk Marketing Board, has refuted the claim that amendments came about through negotiations with the dairy industry. It insists that it consistently opposed any proposals regarding the discounts scheme. The Associated Co-operative


Creameries in Tyne and Wear state that there has been no agreement and states that the proposed changes are an imposition, not a negotiation.
What will be the outcome of these damaging regulations? Some milkmen with a small number of welfare milk beneficiaries will abandon those deliveries as the continuing hassle of collecting the small number of milk tokens will not be worth their while because of diminishing returns. It is clear that the Government have foreseen that as regulation 9(1) will allow beneficiaries who cannot exchange their tokens for milk to redeem them for cash. That is proof that the Government have anticipated the actions of many milkmen.
The Government's action is also sinister as it may be the start of a process to undermine the welfare scheme. The purpose of that scheme is to provide fine, nutritious food for those in greatest need. I believe that the Government may come back at a later stage to say that the scheme is not working.
Other milkmen will have no choice but to continue with the scheme. I am told that in some areas it is not uncommon for welfare milk to account for between 25 and 50 per cent. of the total round. Such milkmen are in deep trouble as they will be unable to recover the cost from their claimant customers, or abandon that business without inviting swift bankruptcy. Inevitably they will be faced with a crippling new financial loss.
Governments of all colours have long recognised that whole or homogenised milk should be a staple item in the diet of the under-fives and other vulnerable groups. There is a social obligation to ensure that such valuable food reaches pregnant mothers, nursing mothers, children in families whose income is uncertain and families where access to shops is restricted because the lone parent, usually the mother, is encumbered by pushchairs, shopping baskets or her pregnancy. Often such mothers are virtually imprisoned in their homes because of the demands of their young families. The daily delivery of a heavy, essential item of food is a godsend. Now it will be put at grave risk.
The regulations also pose a threat to the daily pinta. The dairy industry has already made a strong case against milkmen being short changed. It believes that milkmen should receive extra money for handling the tokens, especially as it involves a great deal of extra work. The milkman must collect the tokens, collate them, parcel them up and send them off. If there is any loss the milkman must make up the difference. Once the tokens have been despatched, he must wait at least a fortnight to be repaid, and often that results in a cash flow problem. The process is lengthy and cumbersome. The NFU has confirmed that the new procedural arrangements set out in the regulations and the extra records required by the Department will increase the administrative burden at all stages of the process.
Milkmen provide a splendid service by delivering the daily pinta—a service unique to Britain.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government stand to save about £7.5 million as a result of the regulations? My hon. Friend has given a comprehensive list of our reasons for opposing the new scheme as well as a full list of the organisations and individuals opposed to it. Why are the Government

seeking to introduce such a maladroit and vindictive scheme, which will save them a mere £7.5 million? In terms of the Department's total budget, that sum is infinitesimal. Given that my hon. Friend is trying to interpret the Minister's mind, what reasons does he believe lie behind the Government's decision?

Mr. Flynn: It is not for me to delve into an area of psychology that has always been beyond me. I do not pretend to understand the mind of the homo Thatcherus. The Government have tunnel vision, which dictates that they must save money. They believe that that principle, having worked in some areas, must work in all. That is why they have fallen into the trap of believing that, if there is bulk purchase, they must receive a discount. That policy may work in the corner shop, but it should not be adopted by a Government who should have other responsibilities other than merely reducing public spending. The Government have blundered on this because their thinking is fixed on tramlines and they cannot get off them. Certainly there are many contracts in which money can be saved.
All Governments have a duty to ensure that they get the best bargain and the best arrangement, but that is totally unjustified in a case such as this, where the casualties will be vulnerable people. In my experience, reaction to the provisions has been universally hostile. I do not know anyone, other than Government spokesmen, who have seen this as anything other than a calamity.
We must consider the service provided to us by the milkmen. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that the total amount that has been spent on milk is £80 million and that the saving will be at least £8 million, but it could be as much as £10 million. Milkmen provide us with a marvellous service and are popular people in our society. They turn up in the most miserable weather, and at the most bleakly unsocial hours to deliver a heavy, awkward, essential food to our doorsteps.
The daily pinta is already enjoying a fragile survival, trading on the good will of the milkmen who toil for poor financial rewards. Why do an ungrateful Government insult them and the value of their work by imposing this penny-pinching cut on their small earnings?
Welfare milk tokens are lifesavers. They form a good-value scheme that provides a fine daily nutritional base for 500,000 families in greatest need. The Government are short-changing the milkmen. They are putting the pinta at risk and are sabotaging a welfare provision that has beneficially nurtured two generations. The regulations are miserly, inhuman and unjust.

Mr. Donald Thompson: This is a niggardly little piece of legislation. I shall not repeat all that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, but my hon. Friend the Minister has obviously been misled by inadequate, half-baked consultants and has been badly advised by whoever advises him on this matter.
I can see the reasons for saying that there is a huge purchase of this milk and for the Government therefore thinking that there should be some discount, but to do it in this way is short-sighted. The Secretary of State will gain another "milk-snatcher" title if he proceeds with the regulations.
How can we talk about "remote areas" in the press release, but not understand that to be at the top of a high-rise block of flats, with a couple of kids and a husband who is out at work all day, is to be in a "remote area"? How can we say, "You can exchange these tokens for cash", because that is what will happen? People will trade in the milk tokens and buy and sell them. The supermarket will take, say, 15 box tops and six milk tokens and knock the value of them off the bill. The cashier will say, "Thank you, Mrs. Smith, that's £35·72 less £7·80, including the milk tokens", but there might not be any milk in the basket. The Government and my hon. Friend do not care about that; nobody cares except the milk industry. Under this system, we will drive people to swapping milk tokens for cash. We may as well have food stamps that can be sold for cash.
The whole crux of this badly advised, badly constructed, half-baked, consultants' dream is regulation 5. How can we say that people can sell milk for any price that they like, but that a chap cannot charge for going to the top of a block of high-rise flats? How can we say that a milkman cannot say to Mrs. Jones, "I've got to charge you 3p for this", when she may say that she does not want to pay 21p or 42p per week, or whatever it is, and that she will go down to the supermarket instead?
How can our party stop a deal like that? We are in business to do a deal. What if someone says, "I'm not going to pay you 3p for your milk"? It is true that the milkman will be able to charge a general charge of, say, 3p to everybody, but he will be able to say, "You lot don't pay—I'll only charge this lady with the milk."
Are we to have another 50,000, 5,000 or even five civil servants conducting sweeps to determine whether people are charging 3p or 2p to deliver a bottle of milk? We are supposed to be getting rid of that sort of practice.
I know no one in favour of these regulations. I also know no one who does not believe that a small charge for delivery would be reasonable. Regulations 5 and 7 could be amended or deleted to make the regulations more palatable, at the very least.
Some months ago my hon. Friend the Minister and I were wise enough to weigh public opinion on green top milk. We did not receive much help from the Opposition, 1 may say. Anyway, my hon. Friend and I listened to what the consumer had to say, and we withdrew our regulations on green top milk because we had listened to public opinion. I advise my hon. Friend to do the same tonight.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall not detain the House long. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) comes from the part of the West Riding in which there are many small dairies and he understands the issue well. He has made many good points, adding to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
I agree that the regulations should be withdrawn. For the greater part of my time of nearly 30 years in the House I have represented an inner city. Many people in it need welfare milk. This marks the beginning of finding an end to the scheme, which has been with us for 40 years. As a result of a redistribution of boundaries, my constituency now contains many small dairies on the borders of the constituencies of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and of my hon. Friend the Member for

Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I imagine that we have received similar letters. I want to raise one or two points from letters that I have received from some of the larger dairies.
Associated Dairies, whose head office is in Kirkstall road, Leeds, has written to me to say that towards the end of last year a Minister
assured the House of Lords that 'There will be provision to enable this reduction to be shared between all sectors of the trade on a voluntary basis'.
That has not been done; there is no such scheme. The letter
went on:
It is now clear that the Department of Health has made no provision for this sharing"
I hope that the Minister will explain that—
apart from a suggestion to welfare milk suppliers that the cost of the reduction which the Government have imposed, should be shared equally by the milk producer, the milk processor and the milk distributor. Indeed, I believe that the DOH/DSS officials acknowledge that they laid the Statutory Instrument before Parliament after having received advice from officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it would not be possible under the Milk Marketing Scheme, for the Milk Marketing Board to contribute on behalf of its producers.
What is the point of making a suggestion if it cannot then be implemented? The letter effectively alleges that the Minister misled the other place. That only fuels concern about what has been done to the welfare milk scheme—

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about sharing, has he managed to perceive—I have not—how a producer-retailer can share the cost with anybody when he has no one with whom to share it?

Mr. Rees: I imagine that some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents know a great deal about dairy farming and will also suffer from this.
The other letter came from the managing director, Mr. Blackburn, of a dairy at Wakefield which no doubt serves Batley and perhaps Bradford. He said that even in high-density welfare milk areas, which affect a relatively small number of rounds, the dairy men will be adversely affected. He raised the same point differently. He said:
Admittedly, the proposal allows the constituent parts of the industry, including the Milk Marketing Board, to negotiate a sharing of the grief. Such a negotiation would appear to us to be of the type generally frowned upon by the OFT.
It has been alleged that the other place was misled and that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could not substantiate the claim made by the Department. Now it appears that the Office of Fair Trading would be against the Government's sharing plans. I leave my case there.
We all know the problems that the dairy industry will face, particularly the small dairy men in the West Riding. The best thing that the Government can do is to withdraw the regulations. The former Minister, the hon. Member for Calder Valley, recalled, "Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher". Is that the Government's theme: that money can be saved on welfare milk? The scheme is misconceived and bad. All Members who feel strongly about it will vote against the Government.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: One puzzle about the scheme is why it has anything to do with the Department of Health. When the Department of Health and Social Security was dismantled I would have expected


the scheme to come under the Department of Social Security, because it exists to cater for deprived people for whose benefit the original scheme was proposed. This is not primarily for the Department of Health. My hon. Friend the Minister needs to explain why he is sitting on the Front Bench dealing with this matter, instead of a Minister from the Department of Social Security. Clearly, this is in the nature of a welfare benefit.
That cat is well and truly out of the bag when people can cash the tokens in a social security office, not for milk, but for money, almost all of which in many cases will have gone to the bus company which brought them there, especially if they come from rural areas.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Because of bus deregulation.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That would have been equally true without deregulation. If people have to get to a social security office miles away it will cost money.
Villages do not have social security offices, nor do many towns. It may not have occurred to officials in London that some parts of Britain do not have social security offices. That is the reality in vast areas of Britain, particularly where there are producer-retailers. They are not to be found in the centres of London, Birmingham and Manchester. They are, by definition, in rural areas.
This is one of the most ill-conceived schemes that I have seen. The sum of money, even gross, is negligible, let alone when net of the considerable administrative costs. It serves no obvious purpose that the benefit should be taken away. Wise Ministers withdraw ill-conceived statutory instruments when defects are pointed out. That is the fate which should overtake this one tonight.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The broad issues of concern about and the objections to the scheme have been expressed to good effect by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall be brief and raise a specific regional point about the impact of the scheme. I hope that the Minister will pay attention and respond to my point at the end of the debate. One of my constituents, Mr. Robert Hosford, who is a retailer running a small village shop on the Isle of Skye, has written to me about the dreadful impact that the revised scheme will have on him. Apart from the additional weighting that has been given to London, the scheme does not adequately take account of the different purchasing costs of milk in different parts of the country. The Minister must appreciate that, for transport and other reasons, the costs and overheads in an area such as the Highlands and Islands are that much greater.
If the scheme goes ahead, the token replacement value will be reduced to 27p per pint. The milk purchased wholesale by my constituent from the local milk board in Dingwall—which is a fair haul from Dunregan—costs 29p per pint. Therefore, small retailers such as my constituent will have to subsidise the Government to the tune of 2p per pint without any profit being made. That is hopelessly unrealistic and quite unworkable. My constituent wrote:
We were under the impression that these tokens were given to people who were receiving some sort of subsidy, ie either Social Security or Unemployment Benefit to supplement their low incomes. Although the Milk Marketing

Board are obliged to take the tokens, it has been left to the retailer's discretion whether he accepts them or not. We now find that if we do accept the tokens and do not supply 7 pints of milk, at a loss to ourselves, we are liable for a fine of £400."That is a pathetic position in which to place the small retailer. It is typical of what will happen in rural areas. The effect on the Orkneys, the Shetlands and the Western Isles will be even greater because they will have far greater overheads. No proper attention has been given to that matter.
The alternatives that have been suggested by Ministers, for example, that the consumer could use a large store or supermarket, are quite unrealistic. For those living in Dunregan there is no point in looking for a supermarket, as that involves a round trip of 46 miles—quite a journey, and petrol costs would wipe out any benefits.
Officials appear to have been wholly unaware of the diversity in the price of milk throughout the country. It would be wise to withdraw the scheme and think again. It is causing great social concern and direct practical economic concern both to those who are due to be the recipients of the scheme and to those small retailers in rural areas who have to administer it. I hope that the Government will have the good sense to take a step back from what is a quite unnecessary and avoidable brink.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I regret to inform my hon. Friend the Minister that I cannot support the regulations. They are ill-thought-out, damaging, and against the best interests of all concerned, especially those in most need of the benefit. It is a serious disadvantage to many milkmen—who are small business men, the very people whom we supposedly support.
What is even more serious is that it is a long-term threat to the delivery of the doorstep pinta—the retention of which I have campaigned for over many years. The elderly, the disabled and those with small children living at the top of blocks of flats cannot walk to the supermarket or the corner shop to buy their milk. They are the very people whose nourishment we want to encourage. I agree, of course, that the Government should get the best value for money. Obviously, with bulk purchases they should receive a discount. But bulk purchases should mean bulk delivery as well. I expect the Government to look for good value in all its contracts. As I come from Yorkshire, no one would expect anything else from me. But I do not know any housewife who has a tankerload of milk delivered very often. To me, that—not a pint bottle—is bulk.
Obviously the Government want to spend very wisely the £80 million that is involved. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to make sure that it is spent wisely. But I am afraid that this is not a means of saving money. The 3p discount that the Government propose is nonsense. As we have all been told, there is no agreement with producers and suppliers. Discussions have taken place, but they have been one-sided. Therefore, either the milkmen or the dairy companies will have to stand the discount. Large welfare milk rounds in inner city areas will suffer huge losses—£50 to £60 a week, it has been prophesied. The milkmen who came to my surgery on Saturday say that even in good areas they will lose £10 to £20 a week. It is outrageous to expect small business men to subsidise any Government scheme by such an amount.
As the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, Baroness Hooper, in answer to a


parliamentary question in another place on 20 December, said that there would be provision. Where is that provision? At the moment it is not obvious to any of us. It has been suggested that Baroness Hooper misled the House in saying that there would be provision. No one can find it.
Will welfare milk deliveries come to an end? The milkmen are saying that if they do not get a proper price they will have to think very carefully about whether to accept tokens. There is no onus on the retailers to take tokens. If they decide not to take them the whole scheme will be in danger. The idea that tokens could be exchanged for cash is outrageous. What guarantee is there that the money would not be spent on cigarettes or gin? That is not the purpose of subsidising a milk scheme. It is essential that the people in question get nourishing milk, and not other things. The exchange of tokens for cash is not something which the Government or the industry could police; the people receiving the cash could spend it as they pleased.
We are led to believe that this matter was investigated by a consultant. I suggest that a consultant, once he has collected his fee and gone on to his next job, has no responsibility. Perhaps this consultant based his report on what may happen in areas of central London. But central London is quite different from the rest of the country. Milk is usually delivered direct in London by dairy companies. Those companies may be able to make special provision. Certainly in my part of the country the situation is quite different. There, milk is usually delivered by small business men—either people who run their own businesses or people with franchises from dairy companies. The loss to such people would be great.
I am all for Governments spending taxpayers' money wisely and carefully, but this exercise will save only a very small amount and will cause a major upheaval in the very important service of the delivery of milk to our doorsteps. That is my main concern. I suggest that the Government look again at this matter—and do so urgently. Certainly I shall not support the regulations.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: It is rather interesting that, so far, not a single hon. Member on either side of the House has been willing to say one word in favour of this measure, and I suggest that it is very unlikely that in the next half hour any hon. Member, except the Minister himself, will defend this decision by the Government. It is absolutely astounding.
In all the literature and statements that they have put out, the Government have talked about negotiation. Negotiation implies agreement at the end of the day. One negotiates in order to reach agreement. But there has been no agreement with the milk processors or with the dairymen, and any suggestion that there has been is completely refuted by a document issued by the Dairy Trade Federation. The federation ends by saying:
Finally the Dairy Trade Federation would like to refute the statement, promoted by the DSS, that amendments to the scheme came about through negotiations with the dairy industry. The DTF has consistently opposed any proposals regarding the introduction of a discount system.
Many of the people working in the dairy industry are small business men. The Government tell us—though I never believe them—that they are firmly on the side of the small business man. I have always argued that they are on

the side of the small business man's biggest enemy—big business. In my view, it is big business that the Government try to protect.
In many areas, franchises are more and more the accepted way of retailing milk. The people who run franchises have to take out a second mortgage, repay bank loans at high interest rates, rent vans, and pay for relief roundsmen when they fall ill or take a holiday. They should be given proper consideration by any Government, let alone the present one.
A probable consequence of the regulation is that some of those people will go out of business, and that will affect many households. An estimated 650,000 households currently receive tokens, accounting for 800,000 children, so the best part of 1 million children will be affected by the change. The Government may argue that they are not ending the scheme, only changing the way it operates, and that existing beneficiaries will continue to benefit. But will they?
One of the regulation's consequences is that many dairies and roundsmen will, to save costs, be forced to cut their services. One franchise on Merseyside is talking of reducing its labour force by 25 per cent., causing more jobless in an area of existing high unemployment. The Co-operative movement in Skelmersdale may also be forced to make redundancies and to review its delivery services if the scheme goes through. The question of the additional costs burden also arises.
In some cases, as much as 40 per cent. of weekly takings will be affected by the Government's proposals. Even those firms that do not go out of business will suffer heavy losses. Those worst affected on Merseyside will include a Bootle franchise that currently takes 260 tokens valued at £546, so that that small firm will lose £54·60 per week. A franchise in Huyton collecting 250 tokens valued at £525 will lose £52·50 weekly. Another in Toxteth, a poor area of Liverpool, takes 180 tokens valued at £378 per week, so it will lose £37·80.
There can be no argument but that that loss will be shared by the Government, and the Milk Marketing Board has already stated that it does not wish to deviate from the selling price agreed with the federation. Perhaps the Minister has some influence with the Milk Marketing Board, but it appears that the full burden of the change will fall initially on the back of the retail milk trade.
Ultimately, those of our constituents living in poorer areas will suffer, because many milk delivery services will end. It may be said that they can make their way to the supermarket, but many are old and disabled. Moreover, that would leave the scheme increasingly open to abuse. Milk, like bread, is used by supermarkets as a loss leader for other products, and there is nothing to stop them from using milk tokens for other supplies: indeed, that is probably happening already. The only way in which we can be certain that value for money is being obtained—that the tokens are being used for their intended purpose—is to ensure the continuation of a viable retail dairy facility.
There is a further social aspect to doorstep deliveries. For many old or disabled people, they provide a point of contact with the outside world. I am aware that milkmen are not there to act as social workers, but I know of at least one case—and there have probably been many others—of an old or disabled person being found very ill. No one has visited for days and days; it is the milk roundsman who finds that Mrs. Jones is unwell. It is not, of course, the


Minister's responsibility to provide that social service, but it is there none the less, and many people will miss the contact that it provides.
People who do not receive milk tokens will suffer as well. For one thing, the loss of a delivery service in a particular area will hit the general customer as well as the milk token customer: indeed, in some cases it will be the general customer who bears the cost. In many impoverished areas poor Peter will be paying poor Paul, subsidising a scheme that should properly be paid for by the Government.
This is a penny-pinching regulation. When the Government talk of achieving better value for money, what do they mean? Do they mean better value for the customer? Certainly that cannot be so. Do they mean better value for the milk roundsman? That cannot he so either. Do they, perhaps, mean better value for the Government? I suggest that the real reason for the debate is that the Department—like all Government Departments—has been faced with a diktat from the Prime Minister. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, "Here is the public expenditure survey: look at the high interest rates and the balance of payments, and tell me whether we can afford tax cuts this year. You had better do your share and come up with an idea that might save a little money here and there."
I do not think that £8 million is worth it, and I think that the general public—the electorate in all our constituencies—will be up in arms as the regulation starts to take effect, as it apparently did yesterday. There is time for the Government to reconsider, though, and I hope that what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House will show the Minister that he must do so. If he has not the authority to deal with the matter tonight, I suggest that he promise a review of the scheme's impact in three to six months' time, and undertake to enter into proper negotiations that will produce an agreement with the trade unions and other interested parties.

Mr. Andy Stewart: It appears that the result of tonight's debate is a foregone conclusion, as the regulations that we are discussing were introduced on Sunday 28 January. That opinion is shared by my milk-delivery constituents, who wrote to me on 26 October 1989 opposing the proposals. When I wrote on their behalf to the Department of Social Security asking for clarification, my letter was forwarded to the Department of Health, as that Department was now responsible; only today did I receive a reply. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that a wait of three months is unacceptable.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend give those dates again, please?

Mr. Stewart: I wrote to the Department of Social Security on 26 October. I have received a reply today.
The welfare milk scheme, introduced in 1945, has benefited millions of children. Milk—nature's natural food—cannot be bettered. I welcome the Government's commitment that the scheme will continue. Milk roundspeople in my constituency feel that the proposed 10 per cent. reduction in the value of the tokens will come

solely from their business operations, yet the Department of Health stated that, following negotiations with milk producers' organisations, wholesalers and retailers, each would bear about one third of the total cost of the reduction. Why should milkmen complain if that were the case? They believe that the Department of Health is naive in thinking that milk wholesalers will be willing to buy milk tokens at a higher price than they would obtain if they surrendered them to the milk token surrender unit.
There are further consequences to consider in my constituency if the regulations are implemented without a guarantee that the price reduction will be shared equally. My constituency is made up of small communities. Delivery costs, therefore, are high. As some dairymen receive 15 per cent. of their income from token sales in poorer areas, they may have no choice but to cease operations.
If there is a reduction in the number of milk rounds that are willing or able to accept tokens, recipients of tokens will be forced to go to the shops where tokens are frequently accepted for goods other than milk. An increase in that practice would undermine the scheme and what it purports to achieve.
The Department's argument, that procedural changes will make reimbursement simpler, is unsubstantiated. I am told that the additional records that would be required by the Department would increase the administrative burden on all processors. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that he will review the workings of the regulations in a few months to ensure that they are working as he suggests and that the price reduction for milk tokens will be shared equally and not exclusively by milk roundsmen.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have now heard enough from hon. Members on both sides of the House to convince me that the scheme is flawed. Would it not be helpful if we were now to hear the Minister's explanation of why the scheme—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. That is not a point of order. When the Minister rises and seeks to catch my eye, that will be the appropriate time for me to consider whether he should be called.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen): I wholeheartedly endorse all that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). The regulations will strike at the heart of a balanced system which, on the whole, has worked well and has been appreciated by those who have received the milk. The milk provided by the scheme for many of these people guarantees that they have some nutritious food. Anything that adversely affects the milk supplier must also affect the future viability of their involvement in the supply of welfare milk.
I am sponsored by the Co-operative movement. I am well aware of the commercial impact that the regulations will have on Co-operative and other milk suppliers. The scheme costs £80 million per annum. The Government are trying to save £8 million. The Co-operative movement, reflecting the philosophy upon which it was founded, is also concerned about the commercial implications of the Government's proposals and the well-being of the users of


the scheme. We have not been told why the Government have decided to make an arbitrary 10 per cent. cut. They have given no rational or logical explanation for it.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) referred to what happens in Scotland. The difference between the cost in London and that in the rest of the country is due to higher costs in the London area. Surely the Minister must be aware that in Scotland, in Wales and in many rural parts of England costs must be higher because of distance and terrain.
A letter from a civil servant to suppliers states that in certain circumstances, such as when a supplier has very high distribution costs, a higher reimbursement price will be paid. That seems to he the status quo. I join the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye in asking for some clarification from the Minister about whether that applies to Scotland and whether it will continue as nothing in the regulations makes that clear.
The Government boast about the free market. Usually, Conservative Back Benchers do, too, but tonight it seems to be only the Government. They boast about the free market and then abuse their position by imposing the idea of a discount without any rational justification for reaching the level of that discount. Surely it is infantile to suggest that the Milk Marketing Board will volunteer to take a share of the cut. The Government know full well that the board will not offer to take a share.

Mr. John Battle: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the view of the dairy associations that under the milk marketing scheme it could be illegal for them to implement the cut?

Mr. McAvoy: Yes. A letter from one of the Co-operative organisations about sharing the grief makes it quite clear that if the Milk Marketing Board were invited to share the grief, it would certainly be a different sort of grief if Oftel were involved in those considerations. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
There is no bulk delivery and no guaranteed continuity of supply. The Government quote a free market philosophy, but use their power to fix the market. That is despicable, particularly when it is used against small business men.
Occasionally Conservative Members have accused Labour Members of being too closely associated with clause four of the Labour party constitution. I am quite sure that tonight's vote will demonstrate another clause which is continually the refuge of Conservative Members trying to dodge responsibility for their actions. It is the suitability clause—"never mind the principles, the policy or the people, just do what suits us". That is the clause that many Conservative Members will follow tonight when they troop through the Lobby to support the Government.
The selling price of the milk must be a matter for individual dairy companies in open competition. The Dairy Trade Federation believes that the imposition by legislation of a fixed national discount will greately impede the viability of the welfare milk scheme.
I believe that the measure is the start of the death by a thousand cuts of the welfare milk scheme. It is the Government's first step towards getting rid of the scheme. They can hardly find £2 million or £3 million here and there to cope with this, but I am sure that right hon. and

hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is the beginning of the end for the scheme, and that is disgraceful.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I realise that time is short and I shall be very brief. I can save time by saying that I am sad that I cannot support the Government and I agree with the views expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock).
I have been asked by my constituents to put three short questions to the Minister. First, why should the small dairies in my constituency carry the cost of a national welfare benefit? Secondly, why give milk tokens at all if the benefit will not be spent on milk as the tokens will be cashed instead? Thirdly, where did we find the imbeciles who have recommended such a crazy scheme?
So far everyone who has spoken has been against the measure and all outside bodies that made representations to me or to anyone else I have talked to also oppose the measure. If the Minister does not withdraw the measure tonight, despite the unanimous opposition, what does he think is the purpose of this Chamber?

Mr. John Battle: It is clear that the scheme has been ill-thought out and shoddily proposed. As hon. Members have said, it was implemented yesterday, yet tonight we are debating the regulations for implementing it. That is completely the wrong way to legislate.
The comment of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that the scheme has been shunted from the Department of Social Security to the Department of Health came as a surprise to me. I thought that the Department of Health was the big-spending Department and was not involved in pound pinching or cuts. The Under-Secretary of State for Health may say that he needs this money to settle a current industrial dispute, but I cannot believe that that is the reason. The Government have a budget surplus of £20 billion, so why do they need to save £7·5 million through this scheme?
The scheme has been going for 40 years and is dependent on one-man businesses. I have received a letter from John Healy, a milkman in Wortley, which says:
I collect around 30 Tokens a week which is about £63. I am writing to object in the strongest manner to the way this issue has been handled without any consultations or consideration to its effect".
That is precisely the point. The most vulnerable groups in society—single parents in receipt of family credit with children under five, the long-term unemployed and pregnant women—are provided with the benefit of the weekly token. The Government say:
The entitlement of beneficiaries to welfare milk is not affected by this change"—[Official Report, 24 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 714.]
That was said in reply to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), so we are entitled to say, "Their entitlement may not be affected, but from where will they pick up their entitlement?"—because this will mean the end of the doorstep delivery.
The dairies have said that there can be no economies of scale. Associated Dairies wrote to me saying:
Welfare milk is provided pint by pint to individual households and costs the same to distribute as other milk.


Milkmen will refuse to deliver welfare milk for tokens. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) said, the cost of the change cannot be passed down the chain. Can the Milk Marketing Board legally pick up the tab for the change?
We are debating a pound-pinching measure. We should be concerned to preserve one of the great British institutions—the doorstep pinta. Conservative Members resisted EC proposals to get rid of the doorstep pinta, yet this proposal will have the same effect if it is passed. I urge the Minister to give us a last-minute reprieve.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): Three major concerns have been expressed by Labour Members and by my hon. Friends, who spoke forcefully and with great authority in this brief debate. They were mentioned initially by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and were touched on by my hon. Friends the Members for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins). In the short time available, I shall seek to answer not only their concerns but the other points that were made.
The first concern was whether the regulations would damage the welfare milk scheme. The Government do not intend to harm the beneficiaries of the scheme. We do not intend to add to the burdens or diminish the value of the scheme; there is no hidden agenda to remove or modify it.
The second concern was that the regulations will place an unreasonable burden on the milkman. We do not seek to place a burden or inequitable share of the discount on the milkman.
The third concern was that £8 million is an insignificant sum. That is equivalent to about £40,000 per district health authority, or three extra nurses. The money comes out of the Department of Health vote, and I do not think that it is an insignificant sum.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) for the unacceptably late reply. As a Minister, I accept responsibility for it, and I shall look into it. The fact that the Department of Health has to answer 30,000 letters from Members of Parliament each year is no excuse, and I apologise unreservedly for the delay.
Let me deal with the welfare milk scheme. We have no intention to alter that and the proposals will have no effect on the right of beneficiaries under that scheme. As the hon. Member for Newport, West said, it benefits children under the age of five, pregnant mums in families drawing income support, and handicapped children aged from five to 16—some 800,000 beneficiaries in all. It is an important scheme and we have no intention of changing it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) asked why I was to reply to the debate rather than a Minister from the Department of Social Security. The answer is that the scheme is financed from my Department's vote. It costs £80 million for Great Britain, paid for by the various health Departments. It is an important programme, providing nutrition—that is its purpose—to families and children, and accounts for about 2·5 per cent. of all liquid milk produced on our farms.
We are not basing our argument on the fact that we are a bulk purchaser. Unlike Sainsbury's, for example, we are

not a bulk purchaser because the milk is delivered in individual pints. But we argue—and we have sought the advice of our consultants, Handley Walker—that without the welfare milk scheme some extra sales, although not all the welfare milk scheme sales, would be lost. If the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton were pursued to its logical conclusion and the Department of Social Security made a cash payment to the appropriate families, not all that money would be spent on welfare milk. We estimate that about £20 million of contribution to overheads and profits can conservatively be attributed to the scheme. That is equivalent to about 0·3 per cent. of total milk turnover.
Our proposals envisage a saving of about 10 per cent. on that £80 million cost—about £8 million—and that is less than half of our estimate of the additional contribution to profits and overheads that the whole of the milk industry makes from the operation of the scheme—through the Department of Health, as opposed to the Department of Social Security, vote. We therefore propose a 3p discount on the 30p pint delivered in most of the country and the 31p pint in London, with a resulting cost per pint of 28p in London. In reply to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), I can say that separate provisions are made for parts of the country where the regular cost of sale is significantly higher, and the discount would operate off that higher price. The 27p price that I have cited for most of England would not apply in those instances. The discount of 10 per cent. would be taken off the larger sum.
The central point of Opposition Members' arguments turned on the question of who should bear the cost of the discount of £7·5 million to £8 million, which benefits patient care. At present the cost is being recycled in the Department of Health vote. In answer to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and others, the Department of Health strongly believes that the burden of the discount should be borne equitably among the producer, the processor and the distributor—I shall refer to each briefly—not the family beneficiaries through a specific delivery charge. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) is quite right to draw attention to regulation 5. Although we do not countenance a specific charge on the beneficiaries, a general delivery charge applied to all customers is a matter between the milkmen and their customers. That is not dealt with in the regulations.
We believe that negotiations between the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trade Federation should commence promptly. A mechanism exists—through the statutory joint committee—for the very modest reduction in price that would be implied by the farmer—the producer-bearing an equitable proportion of the discount.
The independent deliveryman would account for 40 per cent. of the total distribution element for milk. He should bear only an equitable part of the total discount. He should pass on the other part of the discount—which we argue that the farmer and the processor should bear—either by getting his milk cheaper or by the processor—the bottler—paying a premium on the redemption of the tokens.

Mr. Hawkins: Does not my hon. Friend believe that the Government have a responsibility to sort out who pays for the scheme before they ask the House to approve the regulations?

Mr. Freeman: I will give the assurance asked for by my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak and for Sherwood and others. The regulations come before the House regularly because they must be amended. Unless there is evidence of the principle that I have outlined tonight—an equitable sharing of distribution of that modest burden between the producer, the bottler and the deliveryman—I give an undertaking that we will review the regulations.

Mr. Max Madden: The Minister seems to be struggling to defend the indefensible and the assurance that he has just given is not good enough. Will he give a clear assurance that if the burden is not shared fairly between the three sectors to which he has referred, and if we show within three months that dairymen are losing up to £40 or £50 a week, will he agree to scrap the regulations and reintroduce the status quo with which everyone is satisfied? No one can understand why the Minister is fiddling about with the regulations in this way.

Mr. Freeman: I repeat the assurance that I gave to my hon. Friends who pressed me on that point. If the burden is not being shared in the equitable fashion that I have outlined, we will review the regulations and doubtless the issue will be debated again in the House.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. His comments show that debates in the House sometimes achieve something.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Flynn: With the leave of the House, I will respond to the Minister. I believe that we will find that the Milk Marketing Board cannot take on this burden.
A few days ago I had the great privilege of discussing our Parliament with the aspiring members of the new Government in Bucharest and I spoke with pride to the people who expect to be running the country in a few months. I spoke to them in the same way that I have spoken to people in Budapest. I cannot send the Hansard report of tonight's debate to such newly democratised countries with any pride.
In this debate hon. Members from all parties have denounced the regulations. Conservative Members described them as damaging, ill-conceived, flawed and even crazy.
The regulations will be a disgrace to our statute book and a dishonour to democracy. They will cause damage, downgrading and cheating. Even at this late hour and in the event of the regulations being passed, I beg the Government to review them at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I shall try to be helpful to the Minister in the final minute of the debate.
Will the Minister consider using some of the money that will be robbed from milkmen as a result of the regulations to promote the scheme—it operates within the welfare milk regulations—which enables every state nursery with

under-fives to claim free milk for them? The Minister is refusing to promote that scheme—he is making local county councils apply individually. Although those authorities that care about their under-fives make such an application, many others are unaware of the scheme. Given the benefits of milk to young children, why does he not promote it?

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 ( Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)):—

The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 149.

Division No. 54]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Alton, David
Kennedy, Charles


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lamond, James


Armstrong, Hilary
Leadbitter, Ted


Ashton, Joe
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barron, Kevin
McAvoy, Thomas


Battle, John
McCartney, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McFall, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bradley, Keith
McWilliam, John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Madden, Max


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Caborn, Richard
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Callaghan, Jim
Maxton, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Meale, Alan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michael, Alun


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Morgan, Rhodri


Clay, Bob
Morley, Elliot


Clelland, David
Murphy, Paul


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Nellist, Dave


Cohen, Harry
O'Brien, William


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
O'Neill, Martin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Patchett, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Crowther, Stan
Pendry, Tom


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Cummings, John
Prescott, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Primarolo, Dawn


Dalyell, Tam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Reid, Dr John


Dixon, Don
Rogers, Allan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Short, Clare


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Skinner, Dennis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Soley, Clive


Flynn, Paul
Straw, Jack


Foster, Derek
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Foulkes, George
Turner, Dennis


Fyfe, Maria
Vaz, Keith


Galloway, George
Wareing, Robert N.


George, Bruce
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm then)


Henderson, Doug
Winnick, David


Hinchliffe, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Home Robertson, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hoyle, Doug
Worthington, Tony


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Frank Haynes and


ngram, Adam
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)







NOES


Alexander, Richard
Forth, Eric


Amess, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Amos, Alan
Franks, Cecil


Arbuthnot, James
Freeman, Roger


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gale, Roger


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ashby, David
Glyn, Sir Alan


Aspinwall, Jack
Goodlad, Alastair


Atkins, Robert
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Batiste, Spencer
Gorst, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bright, Graham
Hague, William


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI'T's)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hanley, Jeremy


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Janman, Tim


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Colvin, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knapman, Roger


Couchman, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knox, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Latham, Michael


Day, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Devlin, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durant, Tony
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lilley, Peter


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John





MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Madel, David
Summerson, Hugo


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maples, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trippier, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Gerrard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Warren, Kenneth


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wilshire, David


Ryder, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Tom
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

Question put forthwith, pursuant to standing Order No.101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Special Agencies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.—[Mr.Dorrell.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Paternal Support

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell]

Mr. Frank Field: I am pleased to have this debate to adjourn the House on the issue of paternal support for single mothers. However, before I put my main points, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you and the House will allow me to make a couple of introductory remarks.
This issue has gained considerable public coverage recently, largely because of the Prime Minister's comments. Opposition Members know full well that when the crew opposite are unhappy with the captain, they do not make criticisms directly; they talk about the message not being put across to the country effectively. I shall use similarly coded language to begin the debate, and will ask the Minister if she will pass on to the Prime Minister the question that I and my hon. Friends would like answered: where have the Prime Minister's officials been for the past 10 years?
The issue of non-payment of maintenance has arisen largely during this decade. Far from being able to blame the swinging 60s, the real issue of concern for most of us has been the significant increase in the number of young single mothers, and that is not an issue of the 60s; it is very much a product of the decade dominated by the Prime Minister.
Although I shall suggest a number of reforms on this issue, I do so tentatively and with a fair amount of humility. One of the characteristics of Government is that they can be very clumsy with people's lives. Although I am anxious to hear what the Government have to say on this issue, I am aware that we can make the wrong decisions. However, I do not want the danger of making wrong decisions to be a case for not doing anything. There is a balance to be held in this, and I am anxious to understand the Government's balance.
The main theme of my speech—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) wishes to speak as well—will be to consider the extent to which the Government are facing up to the hard issues involved. So far, the Prime Minister has made great political capital out of dealing with generalities and the practical side of the issue of paternal support for single-parent families. However, I maintain that at least five other issues need some answers also, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's.
First, to what extent can we expect single mothers to name the fathers of their children? The rules are such that, if a mother says there is a threat of violence or of potential violence if the father is named, the local office will ask no further questions. I come from an area in which the potential for violence in such cases is very real. I do not want to play down the anxiety that it causes mothers and the officials concerned. If, however, fewer people were on means-tested benefits—the Government have done nothing but shove millions more people on to them—and if we paid our civil servants more suitably, we should now have many experienced officers in the services who could tackle this delicate problem.
If the problem of the fathers were linked with a series of reforms, single mothers would perceive a risk, but many of them would be prepared to take that risk. All we hear

from the Prime Minister is a scheme for mothers on benefit. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not tell us that the Government are contemplating a scheme only for those on benefit; all single mothers should be included in it.
If I understand her thinking aright, the Prime Minister wants a scheme in which mothers on benefit will be able to make over the collection of their maintenance orders to the state. If the scheme is to be successful, it must apply to all single parents. If not, I ask the Government to consider the penalties for mothers moving from benefits to work. They will have to leave the certainty of an income, if only a low one, and move to a wage that may or may not come in each week. Their maintenance orders will have been paid because the state will collect the money and pay it to them, but if they find a job they will have to take on that responsibility themselves.
Unless, therefore, we extend the scheme to all parents, it will not get off the ground for most mothers; nor will a majority of them consider the option to work—

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that maintenance is not a way of getting women off benefit and back into paid employment. However low their benefit, women at least know that it is guaranteed and regular, so they can plan.
Secondly, my hon. Friend made an important point about violence. Many women escaping from violent, intimidatory relationships need to make the break emotionally, economically and socially in order to reconstruct their lives and their families' lives.
Thirdly, men may think that payment of maintenance gives them certain rights over their former families. That poses a problem.
Finally, there is no evidence that making a father pay maintenance will result in his becoming more committed to his family.

Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend for those pertinent points. Before I deal with the point about access, I want to talk about disregards, which follow logically from what I was saying.
Even Opposition Members have said that the scheme that the Government have tentatively suggested should benefit the mother. But I maintain that it would create new forms of unfairness. I would not support this scheme. What about mothers whose former husbands have died? Why should they be put at a disadvantage? What about mothers who, because of violence, cannot name the fathers? They should not be disadvantaged. We know that large numbers of people are prepared to work the system, so there will be trendies who will use the system to put their families in an advantageous position.
Many of those mothers in my constituency look forward to being able to afford to go back to work. If they have the maintenance order paid over to the state, they should have a right to some of the money, not as weekly cash but to be paid into personalised training accounts. In that way, when training opportunities arise while they are on benefit, they will have the right to choose their training scheme as consumers, with the money to pay, rather than have to accept some of the Government's schemes. I hope that the Minister will comment on that proposal when she replies.
I have been reprimanded by a man in Somerset who objects to how I talk about single-parent families, He is


divorced, pays his maintenance, has a good relationship with his ex-wife and says that his family should not be regarded as a one-parent family. He says that where parents, like him, are divorced, the children are not bereaved:
Indeed my three children aged 10, eight and six are still nurtured, loved and cared for by two loving parents. Albeit mother and father live apart.
I applaud that. Nevertheless, we think about access, as there are real problems of violence in some families. There should be no question of access if violence has taken place or is threatened.
Mothers have told me that they regard the father of their child as a jerk and do not want him in their lives. They make it difficult for their child to meet the father in satisfactory circumstances, so social workers take note of that. I understand why many women do not want the father to have access to them, but access to their children is different. I hope that those with no record of violence who want to play a part will be considered sympathetically.
While we think of immediate changes, we should also think of long-term changes. We need to give a moment's thought to what is happening in our schools. I applaud the Bartonhill group which visits schools and has the support of one-parent families. Young mothers tell pupils that it is a wonderful joy to have a child but that it is not necessary to have the child at 15 or 16. It can come later in life. I hope that we can match that by teaching young male pupils about the cost of fathering a child. The most conservative estimate puts the total cost at about £15,000. We should make an issue of telling young men the cost of fatherhood.
I have raised five hard issues. To what extent should fathers be named? Will we cover all single mothers or only those on benefit? What will happen to the disregard? What are the rights of access? What will we do in our schools?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on securing this Adjournment debate, and I am grateful to him for providing the House with an opportunity to discuss this important issue. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) for her intervention.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of interesting points and asked some specific questions to which I shall return. I am aware that he is an expert in this and many other social security policy areas, and does not need reminding of the figures, but much has been said about lone parents in recent debates and I think it would be helpful to set out some background. The number of lone-parent families in Great Britain has increased rapidly during the 1970s and 1980s. In 1971, there were estimated to be some 570,000 lone-parent families. By 1979, that figure had grown to 840,000, and by 1986, the latest date for which figures are available, it has grown to slightly more than a million.
I must remind the House that the term "lone parent" covers a variety of situations—from the young unmarried mother with a very small child to a divorced mother in her thirties with teenage children. The hon. Gentleman touched on that point. I say "mothers", because some 90 per cent. of all lone parents are women. While the rate of

increase for unmarried mothers is faster than for other groups, as the hon. Gentleman said, marriage breakdown accounts for by for the largest proportion. Some 60 per cent. of all lone-parent families are headed by separate or divorced women, while 23 per cent. are headed by lone mothers who have never been married. It would be difficult to apportion the blame for the breakdown of marriage or the numbers of lone parents to any Government, although the hon. Gentleman attempted to do so.
Even more striking than the increase in lone parent numbers has been the increase in dependency of lone-parent families on supplementary benefit and its successor, income support. In 1979, about 40 per cent. of all lone-parent families were dependent on supplementary benefit, but by 1988 the number had risen to about two thirds. Part of the reason for that is the maintenance situation.
Of course, there are a number of reasons for that. For instance, the absent father may not be able to pay maintenance for a period if he is sick, unemployed or on low earnings with a second family. It may not be possible to trace him, or we may not have his name. Obtaining or enforcing a court order may take time, especially when the absent father is being unco-operative. Whatever the reasons, the position is totally unsatisfactory.
Taxpayers are currently shouldering an enormous burden of more than £1·5 billion a year because absent fathers are not doing enough to provide for their families. Those facts are important, and not just because of the cost to the taxpayer. It is quite wrong that absent fathers who can contribute towards the cost of bringing up children fail so do so. Most people accept that absent fathers should meet their responsibilities, in so far as they can, for the sake of their children, their families and, indeed, themselves.
The benefit system gives considerable help to lone-parent families. The Government are concerned that social security benefits should contain some recognition of the additional needs of lone-parent families and they are structured so that, while not requiring lone parents with children up to the age of 16 to be available for work, they are nevertheless not unduly discouraged from working if they wish to do so. Many do want to work, and help is provided in a variety of ways.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned disregards. For those who work part time, there is an earnings disregard of £15 a week within income support, which is higher than the disregard for single people and couples. For those who work full time, the same adult credit is given for lone parents as for couples in family credit, one-parent benefit being completely ignored when family credit is calculated. We have recently announced an increase in the housing benefit earnings disregard from £15 to £25, which, with the lone-parent premium and together with the community charge benefit, is expected to help some 95,000 lone-parent families.
That is what the benefit system currently does, and regular payments of maintenance from the absent father, as well as being right, would also be a great help, as that would provide a useful basis of income to lone parents wanting to start or to continue in work. The benefit system should help families in difficulties, but that does not diminish the absent father's responsibility. The benefit system does a great deal to help families with children in difficulties, but, when all is said and done, it is


unacceptable that the state should shoulder a burden that is properly the responsibility of the absent father, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, something must be done.
As the hon. Member will know, the Department has already commissioned some independent research on the situation of lone-parent families. This has involved interviewing about 2,000 lone parents, drawn from a sample of local DSS offices, about their circumstances and perceptions, and we shall look very carefully at the results, which should be available later this year. But because maintenance is ultimately a matter for the courts, as well as for the DSS, we need to look not just at how DSS arrangements are working but at the whole system and at possible alternatives. We have been working on this with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Scottish Office. As the problem of increasing numbers of lone parents dependent on benefit and diminishing maintenance payments is faced by many countries, it is worth looking at what is done elsewhere, particularly where there are systems that appear to work well, and we have already begun to do this.
I should like to take a moment to describe what happens in Australia—one example that is being studied. There, reforms were introduced in two stages. The first stage established a child support agency as part of the tax office responsible for the collection of maintenance. Wherever possible, child maintenance is collected by the automatic withholding of income at source. In the second stage, which was introduced last October, Australia implemented the more radical component, which also transferred the responsibility of assessing maintenance awards from the courts to the child support agency. Maintenance is assessed by applying a formula that takes account of both parents' incomes and circumstances and the number of children for whom the absent parent is responsible. The first results look very promising. Stage I alone doubled the number of families receiving regular payment.
However, Australia is not alone. In the United States, federal legislation has also been considerably tightened to ensure that all states are doing the maximum to make certain that maintenance is paid. All states must introduce strict guidelines on the level of maintenance awarded; some, like Wisconsin, have introduced a formula—as in Australia—for this. In addition, all states must introduce the means of automatic withholding from earnings by November this year. In New Zealand, a formula is applied to calculate maintenance for lone parents on benefit, while in France maintenance is collected through the tax system. There is a lot to be learned over the coming months from the experiences of these countries and many others.
But we need better information about how existing arrangements here work, so the Department, together with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Lord Advocate's Department, has commissioned a survey of information from a sample of courts and DSS local offices. The survey will obtain information on amounts of maintenance awarded and collected by the courts and on amounts of maintenance paid for those on benefit. The scope will therefore be very wide. That answers, in part, one of the questions put by the hon. Gentleman. The two sources will produce information that we need to enable us to determine what maintenance we can reasonably expect from a different system. We expect results in the summer, and we shall look very carefully at them.
One of the hon. Gentleman's questions related to the education system and what can be done in schools. He will appreciate that that is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. However, I can say that those of us who have studied what is going on in some of the schools in Bristol have been very interested in the experiment that he has described.
The hon. Member asked a number of other specific questions, including one about the requirement that a mother who has not been married should name the father of her child as a condition of receiving benefit. In the real world, it would be very difficult to insist that a mother name the father of her child. She may genuinely not know his name. As the hon. Member for Bristol, South pointed out, she may have very good reasons—such as the fear of violence—for not naming the father.
In any case, the birth certificates of 70 per cent. of children born outside marriage bear the names of both parents, so the problem is not quite as great as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. He is right to say that it is very important that the staff who do this work be aware of the difficult and sensitive issues involved. We aim at discussing the entire situation carefully with the single mother who has never been married and at ensuring that the staff concerned are as experienced as possible. Schemes such as those operated in New Zealand and in the United States impose such a requirement, but I understand that in practice it is not strictly applied.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Department could collect maintenance payments when the mother is not receiving benefit. That is an interesting idea. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate as well as anyone that such an arrangement has enormous implications—not least for the Department, in terms of additional work load. The study is aimed at studying the collection methods used in other countries to establish which would work most effectively in Britain.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked also about access. The Government have already made clear their view that absent fathers should do more to support their children, but access is a separate issue. We believe that there should be one set of procedures for determining access issues and another set for determining maintenance issues. Clearly the child's welfare must be the main consideration in both cases.
I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bristol, South understand that one is dealing with an extremely sensitive area and that the possibility arises of straying into relationships into which many people would feel that the state should not intrude. In any case, the Government's view is that maintenance and access are separate issues.

Mr. Field: But the state already intervenes. It intervenes through the courts.

Mrs. Shephard: The courts are another matter. The hon. Gentleman sought, in a sense, a reward from the state benefit system in return for access being allowed. I hope that I have not misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but that is what his remarks implied.

Mr. Field: I was agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) that the issue was very delicate, but that if a person paid up and if there


was no record of violence, and so on, then if the matter went to court, that is something that the court should consider—and would not automatically ignore.

Mrs. Shephard: We all agree that it is a delicate matter and that there is widespread support for the line that the current situation is unacceptable. In the interests both of children and their parents, effective action must be taken.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked many detailed questions, and the answers to many of them depend on the outcome of the study. We aim at an efficient system that

will strike a fair balance between giving lone-parent families the financial support that they need, and which is their due, and taxpayers who are currently shouldering an enormous burden because absent parents—absent fathers—are not doing enough to provide for their families. That is a considerable task and the issues are complex. That is why we need sound, up-to-date information on what is going wrong, what we need to do about it, and what we can learn from other countries. We are compiling that information as a matter of urgency.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.